politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Too bad they don't understand the "well regulated militia" part.
They clearly do though.
In that you can buy a gun from Walmart, or just give one to your 7 year old?
Yes to both. I got my first .22 when I was 5.
The precedent is perfectly clear and hundreds of years old as well. Scalia cited this 1846 opinion in his DC v. Heller opinion, for example, among many others:
“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 Charta!”
A ridiculous connection, and a ridiculous glancing over something the forefathers specifically wrote out.
"Here's a twisting of it all to suggest everyone have all guns instead of a militia!"
No, Supreme Court justices for the past two centuries actually know how to read, it turns out, so they can easily tell that a well-regulated militia is the main socially beneficial outcome of, and not a prerequisite for or restriction of, the right to keep and bear arms.
So where are they? Why is there not a robust structure, or pipeline of ownership to membership, including (most critically to me) the training and monitoring of those who are armed (well regulated)?
Just because you adopt the first part (ownership before membership) as important, doesn't mean society, and the pre eminent law of the land can just give up on the second.
I don't mean "show me that a militia exists", I don't need that link.
I mean why are the vast majority of gun owners not affiliated? Not trained?
I agree completely, but that's still irrelevant to the question of the right to keep and bear arms in the first place.
This is largely how Switzerland works, for example, and they're a perfect example of why people should be affiliated and trained.
But to answer your question, the dual role of militias as both external defense and internal peacekeepers has unfortunately been usurped. On the one hand by the growth and sophistication of the US Armed Forces, and on the other by the originally racist and anti-working class organizations that later became police forces. The latter highlights even moreso the reason why the right to keep and bear arms is so important (as well as the importance of self-organization of those keeping and bearing the arms!), and it boggles my mind how eager people are to give it up with everything that's happened in the past few years, especially women and minorities.
Thanks for the legit reply. I think we are closer aligned than might seem.
I'm indisposed right now and can't make a full reply but this is a legit chain.
The Supreme Court also justified that abortion should be policed at the state level despite 50 years of it being protected at the federal level, so I wouldn't use their ability or reason as jutsification. "They can easily tell", when it agrees with what you agree with. In the same way the Constitution can be read to agree with digital 4th amendment rights, or not.
Of course they did. It's clearly the correct legal decision, regardless of whether abortion is good or bad or whatever.
Congress has never had the balls to actually enshrine the right to abortion in legislation, and so 50 years ago the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to write the law themselves by nonsensically putting it under the umbrella of "medical privacy".
This incredibly hacky "solution" is clearly outside of the Court's jurisdiction and mandate, and legal experts have been saying for decades that the right to abortion should be enshrined in statute, and not rest solely on this flimsy precedent.
Note also that the Court's opinions specifically note that a federal law legalizing abortion would be perfectly acceptable, if it existed, which it doesn't.
If people want abortion to be legalized federally, they should elect representatives who will sign that into law instead of relying on the Supreme Court to yet again overstep its bounds and write bad law. The Dobbs v. Jackson outcome is very clearly the correct one, legally.
Unfortunately, though, your point that the Court doesn't always follow its mandate or stay within its jurisdiction is well taken. For an actual recent example of the Supreme Court writing even more bad law, look no further than Citizens United.