Why do americans put so much stock in the second amendment when the existence of states' rights and the text of the constitution itself making it refer only to federal powers and Congress ensures that the second amerndment explicitly does not grant the right to bear arms, but only limits the power of contress to legislate against the keeping/bearing of arms?
Especially since in 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
>>80640626
So the federal machine gun ban is illegal then?
>>80640841
It should be, since it conflicts with 2a, but it doesn't matter, since every state could willingly adopt the same measure and it would not be illegal.
but the constitution has rarely stopped the us government from doing anything. while I was looking into it, I actually found that the first amendment wasn't actually enforced until 1931, and in general, was mostly ignored around the time of its writing and only gained popularity and cultural power around the time of the addition of the 14th amendment (which, mind you, is invoked more often for corporate entities than for human beings)
>>80640626
the 2008 Heller ruling overrode the 1875 ruling.
>>80640626
Fuck off cuck, shall not be infringed upon.
>>80640626
retail leaf, retail.
There's a fuck ton of money in selling guns
>>80640626
what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand, leafboi?
>>80640626
shall not be infringed you dog fucking cuck
>>80640626
>Especially since in 1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
I want you to tell me the difference between a right enumerated and a right established by a constitution, and then fucking kill yourself. The justices wrote that because the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not established in the constitution. The right to self defense exists independent and separate from any governments' recognition of that fact. Seriously, kill yourself.
why does canada constantly suck at shitposting
>>80640626
Originally that was true of all of the constitutional guarantees. Ideally it would be true again for all of them.
14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Basically taken to mean state law can't violate the bill of rights.
>>80641856
>The right to self defense
non-sequitur and even then im not entirely sure if self-defense laws in the US are even as loose as canada's
>>80640626
It just means the gov can't limit the power. Of course they weren't given by the gov they were given by god. Or your creator if you are a hethen.
>>80642528
>Of course they weren't given by the gov they were given by god.
>>80640626
Our rights are given by God. The Constitution is there so the government can't step on our rights.
> Why do americans put so much stock in the second amendment when the existence of states' rights and the text of the constitution itself making it refer only to federal powers and Congress ensures that the second amerndment explicitly does not grant the right to bear arms, but only limits the power of contress to legislate against the keeping/bearing of arms?
I'll take 'negative rights by Hobbes & Locke' for 400, Alex.
