The cancer infecting the political Left

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-06-2020, 03:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: No, here is the Second Amendment:

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[35]

[/url]
It's about a militia necessary for the enforcement of the law; suppression of Indian attacks, pirate raids; and slave revolts (now of course obsolete); and formation of state equivalents of the National Guard. The right to bear arms is no more absolute than freedom of speech (I do not have the right to go into a bank or a store and say "This is a stick-up", if I am in business I have no right to do false advertising or to speak in a way in which to facilitate a fraud).   

from Wikipedia:

Quote:In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[15] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[16][17]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-crs2a-17]
Apparently the government can prohibit me from possessing guns disguised as something clearly not a gun (let us say a cane or an umbrella), grenades, bombs, Katusha rockets, tanks, or nuclear warheads. 

No right guarantees the right to harm others or restrict other's rights.  It is correct to say as above that no right is absolute, but you should quote what the limits are.  You should not say because rights have limits, rights are meaningless.

Cruikshank in 1876 was a ruling by the Jim Crow Supreme Court.  They were paving the way to remove all rights so they could oppress the blacks.  It was a political deal.  The Republicans got the presidency.  The Democrats got the south back.  Most of these Jim Crow court cases have been clearly reversed, including this one.

Miller was an attempt to disarm gangsters based on the logic of the Jim Crow decisions.  The government was trying to forbid gangsters from carrying shotguns and tommy guns, which had no military use at the time.  Unfortunately, tommy guns were the early assault weapons, and became commonly used by the US military by World War II.  Shotguns were commonly carried in Vietnam.  Miller sets up a litmus test that essentially says everyone has a right to own and carry assault weapons and shotguns.

Arms that are disguised as something else are still arms.  With the Jim Crow understanding that the government could regulate non militia arms, it made sense to limit disguised arms.  With the right firmly an individual right that cannot be infringed, there is far less justification for the laws against disguised arms.

Now nukes are arms too.  So are hand grenades, weapons carried by common infantrymen with a direct bearing on the militia.  Just because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate weapons development doesn't mean there isn't a need to amend the Second today.  It should be possible to forbid certain military arms while allowing folks to own and carry civilian arms.  Compromise has proven difficult.  The reds are correct according to the text of the amendment and the intent of the authors.  The blues are correct by a century of Jim Crow precedent and common sense.  Each is hoping for a total victory and is not willing to yield.

Being willing to listen and compromise seems necessary.  Instead we get extremists uttering half truths.