Party of Small Government doing authoritarian things. What a surprise.

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times.
#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

For example, an overbearing Government with a majority Congress of of Northern Abolitionists could ban firearms, making it easier for Slaves to escape, threatening our Southern Way of Life.

Not that you'd ever agree with that. Even though it tracks perfectly with what you just said.

This is an ignorant question, but what kind of standing does the Federal Government need to provide when suing a State?

Has the Federal Government suffered an injury at the hands of Denver?

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

Damn.

What's really on your mind, Snoofy?

"Some say that's prefatory, but I say it's mandatory"
--Kid Rock, probably

As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists.
--Snoofy

You're preaching about a world you don't have any experience in.
--JPW

Oh? I don't think my insight is lacking.

Are you a supporter of making guns more available than they already are?

Has there ever been any gun control law that you didn't knee-jeek oppose?

Do you think background checks and red flag laws are an infringement on our rights?

Do you think it should be optional for states to upload data to NICS?

Should teachers be free to be armed in schools?

Do you think violent felons should be able to easily restore their Second Amendment rights?

Add up your Yes's, JPW.
And I'll tell you how much of a gun nut you are.

Originalism is an interpretive tool tied to text and history.
#74 | Posted by et_al

That's true.

It's also true that Originalism is only ever invoked by right-wingers, when they know the outcome they want, but they need to invent a legal rationale from whole cloth.

If there's ever been a Justice that isn't an arch-Conservative who built a legal opinion base on Originalism, please rub my face in it!

Kagan, "We are all originalists now." www.google.com

Justice Elena Kagan has argued that "we are all originalists" in the sense that judges must apply what the Framers meant, whether they laid down specific rules or broad principles. However, she critiques the modern conservative application of originalism, noting it often forces judges to act as amateur historians and can be used to advance personal policy preferences.

Which is the same thing I said.

Why don't you just tell me how many yes answers I have because you're going to argue that no matter what reality is.
#82 | Posted by jpw

The questions aren't hard.
Don't be scared of them.

Doesn't change the fact that you're speaking from a place of ignorance and/or inexperience.
#81 | Posted by jpw

I cited a half dozen relevant real world examples.
It sounds like you're the one who is ignorant.

"You posted examples of what extreme 2A people think."

Those are mainstream Republican values, when it comes to guns.

"Issue is you'll continue on arguing the same thing no matter what my answers are"

The issue used to be that I was "speaking from a place of ignorance and/or inexperience."
But now, you're correctly identified I'm speaking from a place of knowledge and experience on what extreme 2A people think.

I didn't change.
Your "issue" did.

"I am not surprised any more when the loudest advocates of the 2nd Amendment are the Evangelical Christians"

Evangelical Christians are also the largest racist and anti-trans organization in America.

Still doesn't support your contention that gun ownership and 2A support is a proxy for white nationalism.
#98 | Posted by jpw

Here's the proxy:

Black children are over 13.6 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than their non-Hispanic white peers.

You are telling me that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment?

Are minority children over 13.6 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than their majority counterparts in any other country in the world? No, of course not. Does any other country make guns as freely available as we do? No, of course not.

So what makes life in America so deadly for blacks compared to whites, when it comes to the huge disparity in racial firearms homicide?

What portion of that disparity can be attributed to the presence of the Second Amendment here, and the absence of the Second Amendment everywhere else?

If you don't think the Second Amendment explains the lions share of why black children are over 13.6 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than their non-Hispanic white peers, it's because you aren't thinking about it at all.

Not sure about the Repubs at large.
#98 | Posted by jpw

Then you ought to ask them.
Or just look at the laws they're proposing.

2A support is a proxy for white nationalism.
#98 | Posted by jpw

Based on the statistics, it's more accurate to call it:

A proxy for simply not caring that black children are over ten times more likely to get murdered with a gun than average.

Or maybe even, a proxy for denying that out gun policy is starkly reflected in gun violence statistics; I expect you're in that group.

If you're with the Thoughts and Prayers crowd on black children bearing the brunt of the Second Amendment, well, it's the same apathetic mindset as Republicans:

Not all Republicans are racist, but all Republicans decided racism isn't a deal-breaker.

Get it now?