Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Papewaio]

Guns are a Consitutional right for Americans.

And you cannot change that because it is part of the Consitution.

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.

[Lemur]

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.

I don't know if "shown to allow" is quite the right way of looking at things. That's how we, as a nation, choose to read a sentence that could be read at least a couple of ways. 2A is remarkably short:

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.

There's a few different things going on there. Security of the state is given as the rationale, not tyranny-fighting with Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. "Well regulated" is emphasized, which would seem to imply some sort of hierarchy and organization, things that 2A activists generally ignore. Also note that the right is given to "the people," not to individuals as such. You can choose to read "the people" as each and every individual on their own merits, but that's a deliberate choice, and not the only reading.

Anyway. For the last eighty years or so we've chosen to read "shall not be infringed" as the crucial sentence clause, and that's just how we roll, yo. But that's a function of politics, courts, case law, and so forth. It's not the inevitable or only reading of 2A.

[Papewaio]

Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.

[Lemur]

Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.

I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the verb "shown." The Supreme Court chooses an interpretation; they don't dig up golden plates left in their backyard by the angel Moroni and reveal God's wisdom. It's a decision based on logic, precedent, morals, and yes, politics.

So ... we've interpreted the Second Amendment in a particular way for 80 years or so. That doesn't make it Holy Writ, inarguable, or the Founders' True Intent. It's a consensus. This distinction may seem minor, but to me it's important.

[Papewaio]

That's fine. I'm sure you can appeal with a higher court. Oops apparently public opinion doesn't outrank the Supreme Court, neither does any other Court in the US.

So until the amendment is amended it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

[Lemur]

it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

There you go with "shown" again; nobody is showing anything. That's how we choose to read that part of the amendment. A future court could legitimately decide on a different reading. Language is imprecise and elastic, which is why lawyers stay employed, and why nobody codes in English grammar. Not even Strunk and White can get a game of Pong onscreen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You hear people say that "It isn't an individual right, it's only for militia's, which should be well regulated by the government. Also, we don't need them anymore because the government is good and they are outdated fighting forces which could never be successful at opposing tyranny. So, the amendment is stupid and outdated and should be overturned. We just want to know where your guns are and who has them - this is just reasonable and common sense. We can do this because it hasn't resulted in the end of the world in the UK or Australia, who we emulate on gun control. Also, once we know who has them we won't confiscate them, even though we want to and don't believe that you have a right to them as individuals and even though other countries have had success confiscating after they've had them registered. We only want the ones that look especially dangerous anyway, even though they are functionally equivalent to handguns, shotguns, and rifles that nearly everyone has. But we won't come for them, probably. But why shouldn't we? Anyone who says that we will is crazy and paranoid"

It's a rambling mess.

And you wonder why people who like guns and don't see gun crime don't want anything to do with this. You all know why we don't want to start down that path, we know what is down the path. This isn't a slippery slope, it's merely your stated objective, which can't get off the ground at the moment.

[Lemur]

You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.

Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.