It doesn’t “confiscate” the weapons. It OWNS them and as far as I know it takes them back immediately after government service. It doesn’t violate the Constitution in the slightest.
It says “ALL” what? It doesn’t say “all weapons”. As you said - they didn’t know about newer weapons. They could not have explicated those weapons. They said “arms” (emphasizing the need for a militia - a non-federally organized military). So SCOTUS must try to interpret what they meant at the time. Did they mean weapons of mass destruction? Very probably not.
Let’s just say you know as much about me as you do the 2nd amendment.
It’s not the militia part that some emphasize, it’s the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.
And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being “well regulated” not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?
Really, explain that to me.
And then the part that objectivists of your ilk simply don’t have the balls to acknowledge: how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some “my way or the highway” political dogma.
What defenders (all of those you call “objectivists”) are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.
As usual your default and derail to “objectivism” has nothing at all to do with any of this.
Wrong again. It says that the “militia” being well regulated, NOT the citizens.
Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a “well regulated militia”.
Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is “objectively” right or wrong.
Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.
On the contrary, I’m not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I’m arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.
In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I’m armed myself. It’s just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.
And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of “well regulated” are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f … ted_States
Instead, I focus on the words “well regulated”.
No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.
Consider:
How is this not applicable to you:
Again, that’s just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn’t important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.
Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.
I’ll have to get back with you. I have that work, wife, and wealth issue (not necessarily in that order) plaguing me at the moment. But just quickly - you certainly were talking about government service even though you have other issues to address. I’ll get to those later.
I don’t know anything about “Waco” but the others are all matters that involve allowing criminals to own arms (should the bank robber be allowed to keep his gun). And I’m sure that they have all been brought to SCOTUS at one point or another. You might disagree with what SCOTUS decided was within constitutional law. But realize that it is only the US Constitution that allowed those issues to be addressed and decided upon. Get rid of the Constitution and those same issues get decided by random feudal lords and dictators. And I’m pretty sure they would make the same decisions without hesitation and they will also make those decisions ONLY against the people they don’t like (no 14th amendment).
It is the US Constitution that allows for individual citizens to have their case examined at the highest level.
Should known criminals be allowed arms? I don’t know for certain in the US, but usually a criminal at least partially loses citizen rights (else they couldn’t be locked up). If you dig through it you could probably find something in the constitution’s amendments that permitted Congress to pass laws to allow for the disenfranchisement of criminals (and mental patients). I’m sure there is a law in there that meets US Constitution requirements or at least comes close enough for SCOTUS to allow such disenfranchising. It would be an old argument settled long ago. Criminals are not allowed to vote either.
You can disagree with whatever SCOTUS had to say about it (I disagree with a few things) but they are a court that at least looks into it because the US Constitution makes that possible. They might not always be right. But at least they look into it and try (are obligated by the Constitution) to evaluate the Constitutionality - because the Constitution demands that.
What would YOUR CONSTITUTION require? - NOT looking into such matters and making a determination? Write it out. Propose it.
You expect my foot to make such assessments? Better in “my head” than “out your ass”. And it also has nothing at all to do with dogma (except perhaps “in your head” - which seems to be stuck in your dogma about dasein).
Dog how could anyone with a whole human brain make over 38000 posts and never realize how utterly irrational that statement is. It reminds me of your “I’ll examine the evidence AFTER you prove to me that it’s true”.
Obsrvr: “I believe this ball is yellow”
Iambiguous: “You insist that only your own opinion is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with your own are necessarily irrational. What you claim is only true in your own objectivist head.”
How can you keep spouting that bonkers nonsense? - for YEARS.
That’s scary.
The rest of your post is all about the same nonsense. I believe in my objectivist head that there really is something wrong with your brain bloke - objectively. You never learn and it seems that experience indicates that discussion with you is just a waste. Your replies are always the same - anything you don’t like is a matter of dasein and what is only true in the head of an objectivist who thinks his opinion is right - complete nonsensical waste.
I don’t think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.
Seriously though, I can’t even imagine allowing myself to be reduced down to something like this. There’s just no way that, here and now, I can figure someone who takes pride in their own intellectual integrity, spewing out brain farts of this sort.
