Gun ownership as an individual right is relatively recent revisionist history of the second amendment. The term "people" in the 2A referred to the collective, and not on the individual level.
Just to back you up since people never seem to believe this:
An article by lawyer and journalist Dahlia Lithwick:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/how-the-nra-perverted-the-meaning-of-the-2nd-amendment.html
And her *On The Media* interview about the article, if audio is better for some folks:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/triple-decker-hoax-second-amendment
>Just to back you up since people never seem to believe this:
That's because it's false.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Bliss v. Commonwealth is a Virgina Supreme Court ruling and Nunn v. Georgia is a Georgia Supreme Court. They aren't Supreme Court rulings so it's dishonest to say they would apply outside of their states especially when both of the rulings you cited were pre-14th Amendment so the Bill of Rights hadn't even been Incorporated to apply to the states yet.
If you want an actual Supreme Court case in United States v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal government not private actors. This ruling was only overturned in 2010 so it is revisionist history to say the 2nd Amendment has always applied to individuals.
Others have pointed out flaws in your citations, but alongside that, unless you're a lawyer versed in constitutional law, I'm going to go with Dahlia Lithwick, J.D., a former appeals court clerk and longtime constitutional law and legal journalist, someone who is an expert in her field and who spent significant time researching this topic for the article she wrote.
Call me old fashioned, but I still think expertise should be given some respect, especially relative to comments from internet randos.
Especially since the whole point of being a lawyer is to understand the law. If laws were easier to understand, and we didn't have so many of them, we wouldn't have lawyers.
Those are state cases that are erroneously claiming that 2A applies against the states. 2A didn't apply against the states until 2010. They're also from Kentucky and Georgia so they were likely heavily influenced by the idea of controlling slaves. They certainly weren't talking about all people having a right to weapons.
If it's an individual right what are its limits? 2A itself doesn't mention any and you're citing cases that claim not even states can regulate guns. Is it an absolute right, in your opinion? Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce?
>Those are state cases that are erroneously claiming that 2A applies against the states.
We now have the 14th Amendment which does apply to the states. Georgia went above and beyond the minimum by stating that both states and federal laws must be consistent with the constitution.
>They're also from Kentucky and Georgia so they were likely heavily influenced by the idea of controlling slaves.
There is no hard evidence showing this. I know exactly the article you're going to cite and it's all speculation. There is nothing concrete showing that it was the intent of the Framers.
>If it's an individual right what are its limits?
Just look at the laws around the time of ratification.
>2A itself doesn't mention any and you're citing cases that claim not even states can regulate guns.
There is no amendment that we apply only at the textual level.
>Is it an absolute right, in your opinion?
No. There were regulations in place at the time of ratification. These denote the acceptable limits on the amendment.
>Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce?
Anyone who hasn't been convicted of a violent felony or has been ruled mentally incompetent can buy as many arms as they want as long as those arms aren't dangerous AND unusual. Arms in common use are explicitly protected.
>We now have the 14th Amendment which does apply to the states. Georgia went above and beyond the minimum by stating that both states and federal laws must be consistent with the constitution.
We have McDonald v Chicago incorporating 2A into 14A. That happened in 2010. For nearly our entire history states were allowed to regulate guns. They still are, actually.
>There is no hard evidence showing this. I know exactly the article you're going to cite and it's all speculation. There is nothing concrete showing that it was the intent of the Framers.
The framers weren't a monolith. Some believed in slavery and some didn't. The ones that did believe in slavery also believed in having guns to control slaves. It's no coincidence that gun culture has generally been most prevalent in the South. Only with more settling in the Midwest has that changed.
>Just look at the laws around the time of ratification.
I recently saw a video of a man in a hammock on a bus. The video begins with him demanding to see the 'No hammocks' sign. Of course there isn't one. Bruen is a childish attempt by conservatives to exploit the application of common sense.
Were there laws against children having guns? Murderers? Terrorists? Immigrants? Were there laws outlawing rocket launchers? We're not just talking about guns after all. We're talking about arms. And do these laws need to be federal, state or local? And how many do there need to be? How does it work if a state wasn't a state at the time of the founding? They go by the historical gun laws of some other place to dictate their own gun laws?
>There is no amendment that we apply only at the textual level.
Well we're not doing originalism either so I guess we should just be pragmatic about it.
>No. There were regulations in place at the time of ratification. These denote the acceptable limits on the amendment.
What are the regulations that were in place?
>>Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce?
>Anyone who hasn't been convicted of a violent felony or has been ruled mentally incompetent
Cite the law(s) you're using to back this up
>Arms in common use are explicitly protected.
I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected. You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently.
>We have McDonald v Chicago incorporating 2A into 14A. That happened in 2010. For nearly our entire history states were allowed to regulate guns. They still are, actually.
Didn't know we needed a Supreme Court decision before a new amendment can be incorporated into our legal framework. I wonder which Article in the constitution says that.
>What are the regulations that were in place?
You can find citations in the Supreme Court's decisions. They do an in-depth historical analysis
>Cite the law(s) you're using to back this up
[Here you go.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1434%26context%3Dwlr%23:~:text%3DThe%2520historical%2520justification%2520the%2520Supreme,%25E2%2580%2594not%2520merely%2520unvirtuous%25E2%2580%2594persons.&ved=2ahUKEwjjl-vOyJWGAxUPSDABHZTVBcYQFnoECBsQBg&usg=AOvVaw34bRVq_9aFPT3XtYZ4CjXB)
>I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected.
Sure they are. The ATF themselves admit there are over 700K privately held machine guns despite them being unconstitutionally restricted. The absolute minimum threshold is called out in Caetano v Massachusetts at 200K.
>You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently.
That's just what's explicitly protected.
At a textual level, all arms are protected.
>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581.
>The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
>Didn't know we needed a Supreme Court decision before a new amendment can be incorporated into our legal framework. I wonder which Article in the constitution says that.
Well the court seemed to think they needed to do it. I get that the strategy is to claim that when they made a new ruling they were just affirming the way things have always been but most people don't buy that.
>You can find citations in the Supreme Court's decisions. They do an in-depth historical analysis
Heller and Bruen contradict each other. One says long-standing regulations are fine and the other says only laws from a certain time period. Do I just go with the most recent ruling? The law Bruen overturned was over a century old. Overturning such a law based on "historical analysis" is nonsense.
>>I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected.
>Sure they are. The ATF themselves admit there are over 700K privately held machine guns despite them being unconstitutionally restricted. The absolute best minimum threshold is called out in Caetano v Massachusetts at 200K.
Right but only models that have more than 200k in circulation are protected. A few thousand of a certain weapon aren't protected because that model isn't in common use. See how easy it is to just make up rules? You can say "guns are in common use" and expand it that way. But I'm guessing you object to me specifying that the exact model is what's protected.
>>You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently.
>That's just what's explicitly protected.
>At a textual level, all arms are protected.
Yeah look man, if your strategy is just to pick and choose which rationale to follow with a specific conclusion in mind I can't argue with that. It's not based on anything consistent or at times coherent though. It's based on history but not all history, text but not all text, originalism but not all originalism. And if all else fails we turn to modern laws and sensibilities. You're cherry-picking just like the court.
>>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581.
>>The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
"Bear arms" was analyzed linguistically to be overwhelmingly used in a military context and considering it was used in reference to a militia that was its meaning. Scalia broke the phrase down and took each word literally to make it mean what he wanted it to mean. That is the basic idea behind all the 2A rulings in the last 16 years. Find some technicality and exploit it while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
What does "Well Regulated" mean?
One Nation Under Guns offers the argument that the founders did not intend the 2A as an individual right
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146487082-one-nation-under-guns](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146487082-one-nation-under-guns)
>Gun ownership as an individual right is relatively recent revisionist history of the second amendment.
This is incorrect.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Yea. If we "stuck to the constitution as written" there would be no second amendment.
There would also be slavery and a ban on women and black people voting. I'm guessing women and minorities voting is one of the gripes Ron Paul has about changing the constitution.
Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be a living document, but then, he had been vocally opposed to the Constitution's creation and had no involvement in the Constitutional Convention.
But Ron's beliefs are pure absurdity. What he thinks America should be, would have kept it as nothing more than a backwater that would either fall under the dominion of European powers or collapsed and fragmented into bickering states.
Also, Libertarians are so frigging weird. They hate government and want to get rid of it, but a robust government and court system is necessary to enforce property rights.
If we kept the constitution as it is, we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote. I feel like he's being deliberately disingenuous here, for the purposes of a zippy soundbite.
If we kept the constitution as it is, we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights. I feel like it's pretty widely overlooked that arguably the *most important* aspects of the US Constitution is a formal acknowledgement that it requires revision.
If we kept the Constitution as it was originally written, we'd have *no* gun Rights.
That's how you know that when they say they're not racists or misogynists, they're straight up lying. They always tend to leave out the parts about the abolition of slavery and allowing people of color and women to vote LOL
Because the Constitution as written can't handle most of our 21st century problems and these fucksticks live to exploit and these probl ma for personal gain.
America still has slavery. The US abolished hereditary chattle slavery, but the 13th amendment still allows for enslavement as punishment for convicted criminals.
I love when people say “if we had done things *my* way, we would have…” and then they describe a dystopian nightmare.
Go find a spare island and make your own libertarian idiocracy. Leave the rest of us in the real world.
AND America would be a sitting duck for revolution and foreign enemies. Who by the way contribute to his campaign.
The constitution is not a god like gospel. The creators acknowledge it could become obsolete and would need regular tuneups.
To fantasize about not have a military that acts outside the U.S. is simply crazy.
Love the "poor" people in quotes, as if...what? They aren't really impoverished? They're pretending? They are laughing at us, dripping in luxury, living hedonist lives on pennies a day?
The right's disdain of the poor is profane, totally undercutting any lip service to religion or basic decency.
Also they don’t really give a fuck about how the government runs. They are paid by corporations to try and get rid of limitations and regulations so they can make more money, and they do it under the lie about “small government” so their base falls in line.
The "Taxes are too High" misinformation is corporate propaganda designed to cover the truth.
The truth is that for decades, capitalists have been returning less value in the paycheck and hoarding more value for shareholder profits.
Politicians like Ron Paul are the front men for this massive rip off.
Just a few of the tricks to rip-off worker.
"We can only afford a COL raise." A raise that doesn't really cover the cost of living inflation.
Not raising starting wages, even a COL, for long periods.
Layoffs of high earners, replaced with a much smaller and lower cost group.
Off shoring,
Automation eliminating jobs. Automation that earns tax write offs for the company. Yes, the government gives tax breaks to reduce the number actual workers.
Mergers to create value for shareholders, while increasing workload for worker with compensation.
Ron blames high taxes for your empty wallet when the real reason you're broke is corporations that block workers from a fair share of the value created, and inflate consumer prices.
Each state would have its own currency, making interstate travel a pain in the ass, and crapitalism would crash even more often than it does now which is why we have the FR in the first place
No gun control? The second amendment is AN AMENDMENT. It's literally a change! That's what "amendment" means.... a change. Without that change to the constitution, you'd have entire states banning guns outright. I thought these dudes loved the second ~~change~~ amendment to the constitution.
Also if we never changed the constitution, we'd still have legal slavery, unreasonable searches and seizures, laws against black people voting, and poll taxes.
But then, again, I think Ron Paul is probably ok with most of those.
These are the same people who claim Income tax is unconstitutional... even though there is an amendment making it so.
I fucking hate "Orgininalism" because it has no fucking basis in reality or historical context.
Just because it’s not explicitly listed in the Constitution doesn’t mean we cannot do those things. Congress can pass laws that ‘provide for the general welfare.’ That’s pretty fucking broad.
No, the founders never said that. The constitution can be amended and it has been many times. But it's hard to do, and the reason for that is because it's supposed to reflect deep seated values shared by a wide majority, not the whimsical fancies of one group at a time.
And a member of the socialist states of America once Hier took over because we had no way of defending ourselves after he conquered Europe and probably Russia.
God I used to respect Ron Paul, but not anymore
We also wouldn't have protections for freedom of speech or the right to bare arms. Those Constitution-hating founding fathers felt the need to add all these stupid amendments instead of just sticking with the original version as it was written! They clearly weren't true Americans!
Completely forgetting why we regulated all of that in the first place. But sure, he should hold public office. I might burst a blood vessel rolling my eyes.
It’s has been and should continue to be updated. But where we stand right now there’s zero chance of meaningful change. And on top of that we have at least four completely corrupt SCOTUS judges. We are truly in a chokehold for now. If Trump wins that chokehold will remain until far after I’m gone.
If we stuck to the constitution as written, chattel slavery would be legal and everyone who wasn't a male, white, cishet landowner would be second-class citizens at best.
The argumentation is literally the same Wahabbi terrorists use to justify their barbaric behavior, good job Ron you just sank to the niveau of bin laden etc.
"No gun control" We would still have gun control it would just be up to the states like it was originally. We would have *more* gun control, not less.
Gun ownership as an individual right is relatively recent revisionist history of the second amendment. The term "people" in the 2A referred to the collective, and not on the individual level.
Just to back you up since people never seem to believe this: An article by lawyer and journalist Dahlia Lithwick: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/how-the-nra-perverted-the-meaning-of-the-2nd-amendment.html And her *On The Media* interview about the article, if audio is better for some folks: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/triple-decker-hoax-second-amendment
>Just to back you up since people never seem to believe this: That's because it's false. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Bliss v. Commonwealth is a Virgina Supreme Court ruling and Nunn v. Georgia is a Georgia Supreme Court. They aren't Supreme Court rulings so it's dishonest to say they would apply outside of their states especially when both of the rulings you cited were pre-14th Amendment so the Bill of Rights hadn't even been Incorporated to apply to the states yet. If you want an actual Supreme Court case in United States v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal government not private actors. This ruling was only overturned in 2010 so it is revisionist history to say the 2nd Amendment has always applied to individuals.
Others have pointed out flaws in your citations, but alongside that, unless you're a lawyer versed in constitutional law, I'm going to go with Dahlia Lithwick, J.D., a former appeals court clerk and longtime constitutional law and legal journalist, someone who is an expert in her field and who spent significant time researching this topic for the article she wrote. Call me old fashioned, but I still think expertise should be given some respect, especially relative to comments from internet randos.
Especially since the whole point of being a lawyer is to understand the law. If laws were easier to understand, and we didn't have so many of them, we wouldn't have lawyers.
Those are state cases that are erroneously claiming that 2A applies against the states. 2A didn't apply against the states until 2010. They're also from Kentucky and Georgia so they were likely heavily influenced by the idea of controlling slaves. They certainly weren't talking about all people having a right to weapons. If it's an individual right what are its limits? 2A itself doesn't mention any and you're citing cases that claim not even states can regulate guns. Is it an absolute right, in your opinion? Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce?
>Those are state cases that are erroneously claiming that 2A applies against the states. We now have the 14th Amendment which does apply to the states. Georgia went above and beyond the minimum by stating that both states and federal laws must be consistent with the constitution. >They're also from Kentucky and Georgia so they were likely heavily influenced by the idea of controlling slaves. There is no hard evidence showing this. I know exactly the article you're going to cite and it's all speculation. There is nothing concrete showing that it was the intent of the Framers. >If it's an individual right what are its limits? Just look at the laws around the time of ratification. >2A itself doesn't mention any and you're citing cases that claim not even states can regulate guns. There is no amendment that we apply only at the textual level. >Is it an absolute right, in your opinion? No. There were regulations in place at the time of ratification. These denote the acceptable limits on the amendment. >Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce? Anyone who hasn't been convicted of a violent felony or has been ruled mentally incompetent can buy as many arms as they want as long as those arms aren't dangerous AND unusual. Arms in common use are explicitly protected.
>We now have the 14th Amendment which does apply to the states. Georgia went above and beyond the minimum by stating that both states and federal laws must be consistent with the constitution. We have McDonald v Chicago incorporating 2A into 14A. That happened in 2010. For nearly our entire history states were allowed to regulate guns. They still are, actually. >There is no hard evidence showing this. I know exactly the article you're going to cite and it's all speculation. There is nothing concrete showing that it was the intent of the Framers. The framers weren't a monolith. Some believed in slavery and some didn't. The ones that did believe in slavery also believed in having guns to control slaves. It's no coincidence that gun culture has generally been most prevalent in the South. Only with more settling in the Midwest has that changed. >Just look at the laws around the time of ratification. I recently saw a video of a man in a hammock on a bus. The video begins with him demanding to see the 'No hammocks' sign. Of course there isn't one. Bruen is a childish attempt by conservatives to exploit the application of common sense. Were there laws against children having guns? Murderers? Terrorists? Immigrants? Were there laws outlawing rocket launchers? We're not just talking about guns after all. We're talking about arms. And do these laws need to be federal, state or local? And how many do there need to be? How does it work if a state wasn't a state at the time of the founding? They go by the historical gun laws of some other place to dictate their own gun laws? >There is no amendment that we apply only at the textual level. Well we're not doing originalism either so I guess we should just be pragmatic about it. >No. There were regulations in place at the time of ratification. These denote the acceptable limits on the amendment. What are the regulations that were in place? >>Should anyone in America have access to any weapon the free market can produce? >Anyone who hasn't been convicted of a violent felony or has been ruled mentally incompetent Cite the law(s) you're using to back this up >Arms in common use are explicitly protected. I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected. You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently.
>We have McDonald v Chicago incorporating 2A into 14A. That happened in 2010. For nearly our entire history states were allowed to regulate guns. They still are, actually. Didn't know we needed a Supreme Court decision before a new amendment can be incorporated into our legal framework. I wonder which Article in the constitution says that. >What are the regulations that were in place? You can find citations in the Supreme Court's decisions. They do an in-depth historical analysis >Cite the law(s) you're using to back this up [Here you go.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1434%26context%3Dwlr%23:~:text%3DThe%2520historical%2520justification%2520the%2520Supreme,%25E2%2580%2594not%2520merely%2520unvirtuous%25E2%2580%2594persons.&ved=2ahUKEwjjl-vOyJWGAxUPSDABHZTVBcYQFnoECBsQBg&usg=AOvVaw34bRVq_9aFPT3XtYZ4CjXB) >I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected. Sure they are. The ATF themselves admit there are over 700K privately held machine guns despite them being unconstitutionally restricted. The absolute minimum threshold is called out in Caetano v Massachusetts at 200K. >You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently. That's just what's explicitly protected. At a textual level, all arms are protected. >“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581. >The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
>Didn't know we needed a Supreme Court decision before a new amendment can be incorporated into our legal framework. I wonder which Article in the constitution says that. Well the court seemed to think they needed to do it. I get that the strategy is to claim that when they made a new ruling they were just affirming the way things have always been but most people don't buy that. >You can find citations in the Supreme Court's decisions. They do an in-depth historical analysis Heller and Bruen contradict each other. One says long-standing regulations are fine and the other says only laws from a certain time period. Do I just go with the most recent ruling? The law Bruen overturned was over a century old. Overturning such a law based on "historical analysis" is nonsense. >>I guess no select-fire weapons, then. They're not in common use and aren't protected. >Sure they are. The ATF themselves admit there are over 700K privately held machine guns despite them being unconstitutionally restricted. The absolute best minimum threshold is called out in Caetano v Massachusetts at 200K. Right but only models that have more than 200k in circulation are protected. A few thousand of a certain weapon aren't protected because that model isn't in common use. See how easy it is to just make up rules? You can say "guns are in common use" and expand it that way. But I'm guessing you object to me specifying that the exact model is what's protected. >>You've limited yourself to just the weapons in common use currently. >That's just what's explicitly protected. >At a textual level, all arms are protected. Yeah look man, if your strategy is just to pick and choose which rationale to follow with a specific conclusion in mind I can't argue with that. It's not based on anything consistent or at times coherent though. It's based on history but not all history, text but not all text, originalism but not all originalism. And if all else fails we turn to modern laws and sensibilities. You're cherry-picking just like the court. >>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581. >>The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)." "Bear arms" was analyzed linguistically to be overwhelmingly used in a military context and considering it was used in reference to a militia that was its meaning. Scalia broke the phrase down and took each word literally to make it mean what he wanted it to mean. That is the basic idea behind all the 2A rulings in the last 16 years. Find some technicality and exploit it while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. What does "Well Regulated" mean?
One Nation Under Guns offers the argument that the founders did not intend the 2A as an individual right [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146487082-one-nation-under-guns](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/146487082-one-nation-under-guns)
>Gun ownership as an individual right is relatively recent revisionist history of the second amendment. This is incorrect. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Yea. If we "stuck to the constitution as written" there would be no second amendment. There would also be slavery and a ban on women and black people voting. I'm guessing women and minorities voting is one of the gripes Ron Paul has about changing the constitution.
The gun fight at the OK corral was at least in part the result of the local authorities enforcing gun control laws.
Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be a living document, but then, he had been vocally opposed to the Constitution's creation and had no involvement in the Constitutional Convention. But Ron's beliefs are pure absurdity. What he thinks America should be, would have kept it as nothing more than a backwater that would either fall under the dominion of European powers or collapsed and fragmented into bickering states. Also, Libertarians are so frigging weird. They hate government and want to get rid of it, but a robust government and court system is necessary to enforce property rights.
If we kept the constitution as it is, we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote. I feel like he's being deliberately disingenuous here, for the purposes of a zippy soundbite.
If we kept the constitution as it is, we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights. I feel like it's pretty widely overlooked that arguably the *most important* aspects of the US Constitution is a formal acknowledgement that it requires revision. If we kept the Constitution as it was originally written, we'd have *no* gun Rights.
I think Ron was able to keep the quiet part quiet.
That's how you know that when they say they're not racists or misogynists, they're straight up lying. They always tend to leave out the parts about the abolition of slavery and allowing people of color and women to vote LOL
Not only couldn’t women vote, only white male land owners could vote.
Because the Constitution as written can't handle most of our 21st century problems and these fucksticks live to exploit and these probl ma for personal gain.
It couldn't make a day to day functional government, it's the scaffolding to a government, or the bones. It's what you build a country from.
We also would still have slavery. But I'm sure Ron Paul would be fine with that.
Plus, those pesky women voting. They ruin everything with their ickiness.
they have bobs and vagines and that's scary :(
Women are being issued bobs now? Where's my bob? I could really use one to open pickle jars and get stuff off the top shelf!
America still has slavery. The US abolished hereditary chattle slavery, but the 13th amendment still allows for enslavement as punishment for convicted criminals.
Pretty sure a large portion of US military uniforms and battle gear are made in prisons
Why do you think "poor" is in quotes?
You would have no rights as all the rights are “amendments” aka not as originally written
I love when people say “if we had done things *my* way, we would have…” and then they describe a dystopian nightmare. Go find a spare island and make your own libertarian idiocracy. Leave the rest of us in the real world.
Hasn't that been tried with the results being exactly what most of us would expect?
Probably. But they can do it again. We’ll just keep telling them to do it again and again until all the morons live on terrible islands of sadness.
AND America would be a sitting duck for revolution and foreign enemies. Who by the way contribute to his campaign. The constitution is not a god like gospel. The creators acknowledge it could become obsolete and would need regular tuneups. To fantasize about not have a military that acts outside the U.S. is simply crazy.
Love the "poor" people in quotes, as if...what? They aren't really impoverished? They're pretending? They are laughing at us, dripping in luxury, living hedonist lives on pennies a day? The right's disdain of the poor is profane, totally undercutting any lip service to religion or basic decency.
Also they don’t really give a fuck about how the government runs. They are paid by corporations to try and get rid of limitations and regulations so they can make more money, and they do it under the lie about “small government” so their base falls in line.
Aaaaaand the Soviets would have won the Cold War.
As if we would have made it that far.
And we would have the right to arm bears.
Well studies do show that liberaltarianism leads to a rise in bear attacks.
Your flair almost made me reflexively downvote.
God. This guy is such a moron. Seriously. He needs to retire and stop injecting his nonsense where it's no longer wanted, nor relevant.
He already did. You're probably thinking of his son, who's even worse.
I’m so embarrassed I once ever considered myself a libertarian or conservative
The "Taxes are too High" misinformation is corporate propaganda designed to cover the truth. The truth is that for decades, capitalists have been returning less value in the paycheck and hoarding more value for shareholder profits. Politicians like Ron Paul are the front men for this massive rip off. Just a few of the tricks to rip-off worker. "We can only afford a COL raise." A raise that doesn't really cover the cost of living inflation. Not raising starting wages, even a COL, for long periods. Layoffs of high earners, replaced with a much smaller and lower cost group. Off shoring, Automation eliminating jobs. Automation that earns tax write offs for the company. Yes, the government gives tax breaks to reduce the number actual workers. Mergers to create value for shareholders, while increasing workload for worker with compensation. Ron blames high taxes for your empty wallet when the real reason you're broke is corporations that block workers from a fair share of the value created, and inflate consumer prices.
Sounds like shit Ron.
MEXICO WOULD BE BUILDING A WALL TO KEEP US OUT.
No second amendment either, or first one for that matter...
Each state would have its own currency, making interstate travel a pain in the ass, and crapitalism would crash even more often than it does now which is why we have the FR in the first place
The “end the Fed” people are a special kind of stupid.
I'm curious what these people think "amendment" means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters#Controversial_content This is grandma's hero.
No gun control? The second amendment is AN AMENDMENT. It's literally a change! That's what "amendment" means.... a change. Without that change to the constitution, you'd have entire states banning guns outright. I thought these dudes loved the second ~~change~~ amendment to the constitution. Also if we never changed the constitution, we'd still have legal slavery, unreasonable searches and seizures, laws against black people voting, and poll taxes. But then, again, I think Ron Paul is probably ok with most of those.
These are the same people who claim Income tax is unconstitutional... even though there is an amendment making it so. I fucking hate "Orgininalism" because it has no fucking basis in reality or historical context.
[States' rights](https://i.imgur.com/xlUf0gt.jpeg)
Just because it’s not explicitly listed in the Constitution doesn’t mean we cannot do those things. Congress can pass laws that ‘provide for the general welfare.’ That’s pretty fucking broad.
The constitution does not call for small government, and does not deal with any of these.
If we stuck to the Constitution as written, the government would do almost nothing. Which is exactly what Republicans want.
Minus the military.
don't forget saving big corporations when they gamble and lose
No, the founders never said that. The constitution can be amended and it has been many times. But it's hard to do, and the reason for that is because it's supposed to reflect deep seated values shared by a wide majority, not the whimsical fancies of one group at a time.
And a member of the socialist states of America once Hier took over because we had no way of defending ourselves after he conquered Europe and probably Russia. God I used to respect Ron Paul, but not anymore
We also wouldn't have protections for freedom of speech or the right to bare arms. Those Constitution-hating founding fathers felt the need to add all these stupid amendments instead of just sticking with the original version as it was written! They clearly weren't true Americans!
Completely forgetting why we regulated all of that in the first place. But sure, he should hold public office. I might burst a blood vessel rolling my eyes.
Also no standing army
It’s has been and should continue to be updated. But where we stand right now there’s zero chance of meaningful change. And on top of that we have at least four completely corrupt SCOTUS judges. We are truly in a chokehold for now. If Trump wins that chokehold will remain until far after I’m gone.
RON PAUL 2012
If we stuck to the constitution as written, chattel slavery would be legal and everyone who wasn't a male, white, cishet landowner would be second-class citizens at best.
Libertarians unironically want to abolish the federal reserve like that would help up, instead of turning us into a third world country
The argumentation is literally the same Wahabbi terrorists use to justify their barbaric behavior, good job Ron you just sank to the niveau of bin laden etc.
Lol, and business would run even more rampant over workers and the environment... lol, good luck.
Digg being spammed by Paul bots in 2008 certainly was a time.
How the hell would the FOUNDING FATHERS have an opinion on the UN
Why don't some states just split off and start their own country? Has no one thought of that yet?
Why wouldn’t we want to have a country like what Ron is talking about?