Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4
th, 2021 at 7:48pm:
Face the reality, Bias. The Second Amendment has effectively been reinterpreted. Tsk, tsk
You keep saying it, but you're wrong. You've let your peeve with the NRA, and your anxiety to have gun control distort your thinking about the 2nd Amendment
Like so many other people you fail to understand the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The latter part of the 2nd is for the protection of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say what sort of arms, therefore they can be regulated, but the RIGHT to keep and bear them can't be changed while ever it's in the Constitution, and this is how the courts adjudicate on 2nd Amendment matters.
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms can't be reinterpreted, not even for the anti-gun lobby, but the "arms" can be regulated as being fit, or unfit for a "free State". No "reinterpretation" is necessary, the correct interpretation was made centuries ago, and the courts were left with the job of deciding which type of "arms". That's why it just says "arms", not specifically rifles, handguns, bazookas or any other specific weapon
So your so-called "reinterpretation" is only your attempt to say the meaning of the 2nd was changed. It hasn't been changed at all, you're confused about the "Right to keep and bear arms" with the courts right to regulate the "arms", and the courts have aways had the power to do that, but they don't "reinterpret", they regulate
Any "reinterpretation" is only "misinterpretation" … and that's not a wise thing to do on anything in the Constitution. It's only in the minds of fools and those who don't bother to try and understand the Amendment properly
This is an example of a ruling, a 1939 ruling on the regulation of "arms" re: sawn-off shotguns. But note the last paragraph and the highlighted sentence before it
United States v. Miller
(1939), the
Supreme Court held that the Second
Amendment did not protect the right to
possess all types of weapons. The Court
upheld a federal law that regulated sawed-
off shotguns [one type of gun that is easily
concealed and often used by criminals].
The Court reasoned that since that type
of weapon was not related to keeping up
a militia, the Second Amendment did not
protect the right to own it.
In other words,
the Second Amendment protected a right
to own weapons. The question was how far
that right went.Your gloating about full auto firearms being banned is just that, gloating. The "arms" have always been subject to regulation, it's no big deal like you try to make it out to be
Without a good understanding of the two parts in the 2nd Amendment, you're likely to get everything wrong about it
The regulation of the "arms" is consistent with maintaining a "well regulated militia" and "free State" as per the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Can't have ordinary people randomly shooting up the "State" with Howitzers or the like, it wouldn't be a free State anymore. So the "arms" are regulated
For smaller firearms, the courts have the power to regulate those too, but your childish language calling people "gun nuts" and "scum" isn't going to hasten more regulation, it just induces anger and resistance in people
If you'd like the meaning of the 2nd Amendment changed (to a different interpretation), you'd have to trigger the Article V process and see if you could succeed at changing it
It's ridiculous to suggest the courts reinterpreted the 2nd. The courts are not that silly. They just decide which "arms" citizens can have