(05-02-2021 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The entire 2nd Amendment is what, 27 words. Do you think the Founding Fathers threw in "A well-regulated militia" just for kicks? Like they expected everybody to ignore that phrase?
"Hey guys... A well-regulated militia sounds pretty nice but it is of absolutely zero importance to this Amendment. Let's just put it in a dependent clause so people will know that it is meaningless!"
Really?

Yep, pretty much.

That scenario seems laughably far-fetched to me.

How much of the topic have you looked at in the then existing state protections for arms, in the Federalist papers, in any writings by the attendees of the 1787 Convention, or historical accounts?

My guess is that your opinion above has as much background work as your homework on the usage of semi autos in this country?

Tanq, I'm curious how you feel about #'s gun licensing proposal WRT a citizen's Constitutional rights. It's fine as long as the enforcement is reasonable or you don't like the idea of a license at all?

I think it negates the idea of a fundamental right.

What do you think about a similar proposal that requires explicit individual state permission to get an abortion? Or an explicit jndividual state permission to practice a specific religion?

The idea of a fundamental right is that the default is that a person may be able to enjoy that activity *unless* the government can show an extraordinary reason not to.

A licensing scheme like that proposed turns the burden completely on its head.

*If* keeping arms was *not* a fundamental right, the system might make sense. But pragmatically it would make sense only if each jurisdiction implemented a 'shall issue' means to fo so, That is, implementing an objective criteria that is not out of this world to reach, and if reached the state has to issue.

Given the reluctance of blue jurisdictions to even achieve that, I think that system would be ripe for misuse.

But in terms of a Constitutional right, at least for commonly used firearms, the idea of a license to exercise what should be a dd facto right cuts in z major way against the core concept of a right.