Gun Control & RKBA

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)

17. So you agree the NRA changed the meaning of the 2nd Am

Sat Aug 10, 2019, 02:22 PM

Aug 2019

Republican political operatives and billionaires built the Federalist Society primarily to install judges that would decide for businesses and CEOs and the wealthy against the middle class. But then Republicans realized gun politics was a great way to get uneducated white people to vote for the billionaires. So voila, Republicans became in favor of changing the 2nd Amendment.

I trust that readers can see through the sophistry of your argument details.

It is nice to see, however, that you confirm ultimately that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the right applies only to militias.

Guns in America get kids killed. Let’s ban all semiautomatics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right [View all] sharedvalues Aug 2019 OP

Yup, Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller enshrined something made up out of whole cloth RockRaven Aug 2019 #1

And Scalia in Heller literally got people killed in DC sharedvalues Aug 2019 #4

Money and power Buzz cook Aug 2019 #2

1939 scotus miller decision jimmy the one Aug 2019 #3

Can we change the name of this forum? "Gun control and made-up Republican RKBA"? sharedvalues Aug 2019 #5

Or better "Gun control and our well-organized militia" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #6

Consider this possibility: guillaumeb Aug 2019 #36

2ndA and slavery jimmy the one Aug 2019 #56

It's been considered here several times before, and shown to be false friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #63

I would like to see them back up this claim. gejohnston Aug 2019 #7

gun control hardly needed in 1790's jimmy the one Aug 2019 #8

not true gejohnston Aug 2019 #9

As you've seen, if ones' only strengths are 'repeated argument by assertion'... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #11

the go to after gejohnston Aug 2019 #16

then 1792, and now 2019 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #12

Historial fact, gejohnston Aug 2019 #14

ad hoc u hoc et al hoc jimmy the one Aug 2019 #19

I made no such claim gejohnston Aug 2019 #37

henry dearborn's firearm census 1803 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #20

Estimated ownership gejohnston Aug 2019 #30

malcolm, far right wing gun guru jimmy the one Aug 2019 #21

Personal attack gejohnston Aug 2019 #27

his rebuttals leave me almost speechless jimmy the one Aug 2019 #34

I honestly don't care. gejohnston Aug 2019 #39

It's sad that you and 16 other people believe that law review articles actually have legal weight friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #10

A interesting article with an irredeemable flaw sarisataka Aug 2019 #13

So you agree the NRA changed the meaning of the 2nd Am sharedvalues Aug 2019 #17

I feel like a squirrel preparing for winter, sarisataka Aug 2019 #18

Shrug. The NRA is a domestic terror organization sharedvalues Aug 2019 #24

no irredeemable flaw, except by you jimmy the one Aug 2019 #22

Many words... I will use fewer sarisataka Aug 2019 #23

moot, miller jimmy the one Aug 2019 #25

Thank you. I didn't have the energy to deconstruct sarisataka's many misleading points sharedvalues Aug 2019 #29

1938 DoJ amicus brief to 1939 supreme court jimmy the one Aug 2019 #28

Wow. DOJ 1938: "2nd A does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #32

And finally we come to agreement sarisataka Aug 2019 #40

? What? sharedvalues Aug 2019 #45

bor both guarantee of rights & limitation on congress jimmy the one Aug 2019 #49

We may be reaching the same point sarisataka Aug 2019 #41

scalia mischaracterized england's 'have arms' decree of 1689 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #43

wrong as usual gejohnston Aug 2019 #46

cognitive dissonance jimmy the one Aug 2019 #47

No, I said what the Miller decision said gejohnston Aug 2019 #48

just ask jimmy the one Aug 2019 #50

why aren't you citing the decision itself? gejohnston Aug 2019 #51

Obvious answer: Because, when read in full, it doesn't say what James claims it says. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #52

defence, english style jimmy the one Aug 2019 #54

No contradiction there, save in your own mind friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #55

not mutually exclusive gejohnston Aug 2019 #57

plausible enough jimmy the one Aug 2019 #58

the comprehention problem is strictly yours, gejohnston Aug 2019 #60

based on england's 'assize of arms' jimmy the one Aug 2019 #53

What other right is a collective right? krispos42 Aug 2019 #15

But Scalia claimed to be an originalist. guillaumeb Aug 2019 #26

Yes. Scalia was a right-wing partisan and his "originalism" was just a front sharedvalues Aug 2019 #31

Scalia had an agenda, guillaumeb Aug 2019 #33

Oh no question, he was a judicial activist. Exactly sharedvalues Aug 2019 #35

Thomas is just as bad. So many conflicts of interest. eom guillaumeb Aug 2019 #38

Yes. His wife is an insane rightwing crazy. sharedvalues Aug 2019 #44

Funny, gejohnston Aug 2019 #42

Been following this melm00se Aug 2019 #59

Yes sharedvalues Aug 2019 #62

Yup. "Only slender support for individual right to own gun" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #64

This idea of a collective right is so interesting to me. MarvinGardens Aug 2019 #61

Considering the legal treatment of GLBT, minorities, women and minors SQUEE Aug 2019 #65