The 2A refers to "the people." You refer to "people." what do you mean? What do you imagine the founders meant? — tim wood

American citizens.

In a Massachusetts' court - or in any other court I know of - your opinion wouldn't matter. And, that is exactly the circumstance in which you're obliged to retreat if you can. — tim wood

If someone is breaking into your home at night, where are you supposed to retreat to? The back yard? Under the bed? Regardless, I live in California.

"Good heavens! Read your own citation! I quote from it:
"The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011."

My citation showed there are 100,000 cases of defensive gun use every year. Do you dispute that? Not every case of defensive gun use is going to be reported as a crime.

"David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.
"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared.""

If there are 100,000 cases of defensive gun use a year then the claim "has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense" is false or pretty misleading.

"So apparently you assess yourself personally as not so much at risk; yours is a drawer gun. Do you ever practice with it? How do you assess your chances of successfully confronting a house breaker with your gun? That is, your gun by itself could get you or someone else killed who should not be killed if you're not proficient, trained, knowledgeable, and practiced in its use - and never mind what your bullet hits if it misses your target."

I've practiced and am proficient with it. I no longer target shoot. My nearest neighbor's house is hundreds of feet away. The danger to them of a .38 round going through two (or more) walls and hitting them is nil.

There are 400 million+ guns in America. It's easy for criminals to get their hands on one. Law-abiding citizens should have access to guns to counter the threat and that requires gun manufacturers. — RogueAI

Was this copy-and-pasted from the NRA?

I invite you to be the very first to build the bridge that connects the 2A with any modern interpretation of it. — tim wood

This is interesting…

This is interesting… — Mikie

Yep. Per Chomsky three reasons for the 2A. 1) To serve in lieu of a standing army against the British, 2) to kill Indians, 3) to control slaves. None of these relevant for a long time, and he trashes Scalia in Heller.

He's asked if "the people" shouldn't have guns to protect themselves from the government. And Chomsky notes the lie, in that guns don't do people much good, and certainly not against the army. And I note that in the US of A, the government is the people - "We the people...".

Scalia's reading of the 2A as guaranteeing a right to guns for self-defense is simply a brutal misreading of the plain English of its 27 words - as well as the intentions of the founders. And one wonders why he did it.

Scalia's reading of the 2A as guaranteeing a right to guns for self-defense is simply a brutal misreading of the plain English of its 27 words - as well as the intentions of the founders. And one wonders why he did it. — tim wood

And why did the other four go along?

My invitation to you was for you to make the bridge, not to refer me to a video. I think the 2A is straightforward and simple. I don't know why the USSC decided to rewrite it - at least in terms of its interpretation. But if you can find self-defense in it, please let me know.

The usual cant is against so-called activist judges. But what usually is not credited is that a balanced activism goes with the territory and is necessary. The notion that we should be governed by the words, meanings, sense, purposes of the Constitution as written in 1787 is alien to the expressed understanding of the writers themselves - they understanding that the document would need maintenance and ongoing perfecting, just as a knife in use requires sharpening.

Had Scalia, et al, been, oh I don't know, smarter, certainly wiser, certainly more observant, they could not have failed to notice that modern weaponry bears no relation to muskets and that the reasons for the 2A's existence had long dissolved into the historical mists. Further, that current regulation could not sensibly be a part of Constitutional law, for the simple reason that Wyoming is not New York City: that regulation is reasonable - not in itself un-Constitutional - and that state and local regulation is the proper venue for that regulation.

And original intent is in itself absurd. It's a short argument from original intent to taking away women's right to vote, or re-establishing slavery. Can't be done? Roe v. Wade was pretty good law - recent cases have not made anything better. Original intent is akin to a group of boys on a camping trip at night in a tent playing with a hand-grenade.

My invitation to you was for you to make the bridge, not to refer me to a video. — tim wood

Your question was poorly worded. What “bridge”? There is no bridge. What the fuck are you talking about?

And original intent is in itself absurd. — tim wood

No kidding. The Heller decision was awful. As was Bruen. What’s the point?

The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished.
— Mikie
"What we think." I invite you to be the very first to build the bridge that connects the 2A with any modern interpretation of it. It's just one sentence, twenty-seven words. Have at it. — tim wood

That's the bridge I meant. I asked because I read you as saying that the 2008 interpretation was finally the correct and original interpretation, which I disagree with.

I asked because I read you as saying that the 2008 interpretation was finally the correct and original interpretation, which I disagree with. — tim wood

Okay— my wording was ambiguous. It should have read: many people think the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to a gun, and that this is what it has always meant— but really it was only (re)-interpreted this way in 2008.

Civilians should be limited to revolvers, shotguns or bolt-action rifles, with lengthy prison time for any violators. That is definitely not an NRA position.

Civilians should be limited to revolvers, shotguns or bolt-action rifles, with lengthy prison time for any violators. — RogueAI

Where are you going to find that many prisons and who will run the country when so many workers are in them?