Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "Supreme Court makes 'momentous' Second Amendment ruling" video.

@jamesbarlow6423 You're correct. That's the whole reason we have the Supreme Court -- to interpret our laws as they apply to specific cases.
3
I am personally in favor of placing restrictions, like being over 21yo, on the sale of semi-auto, high-powered rifles and placing limitations on those with prior felony convictions involving a firearm from being able to purchase future firearms, BUT, I 100% agree with this SCOTUS decision. People purchasing legal firearms should NOT have to provide, show or prove any type of specific need in order to make the purchase -- Self-defense and protection of property being implied already meets the need, and if it didn't, the 2A would have included wording saying so. FULL STOP.
3
I'M ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM! That is the consensus of legal academia as to why the founders adopted the 2A. It was to ensure the people could defend against any future govt tyranny.
3
I am personally in favor of placing restrictions, like being over 21yo, on the sale of semi-auto, high-powered rifles and placing limitations on those with prior felony convictions involving a firearm from being able to purchase future firearms, BUT, I 100% agree with this SCOTUS decision. People purchasing legal firearms should NOT have to provide, show or prove any type of specific need in order to make the purchase -- Self-defense and protection of property being implied already meets the need, and if it didn't, the 2A would have included wording saying so. FULL STOP.
3
@FRAME5RS However, the reason for having the Supreme Court is to interpret our laws as they apply to specific cases. If the supreme court didn't do that, there would be no need to have such a court.
2
@garretdrake2347 It has already been debated and a conclusion was reached, rather quickly, that the founders were not implying that only members of the militia were being granted the right to bear arms. It became a mute point decades ago
2
@tiredofit1968 No worries. I was genuinely asking because I couldn't recall that wording, but if it is there, I wanted to narrow down the most efficient way (search terms) to find it. That said, I do think "self-defense/self-preservation is an implied god-given right" -- (to include everyone's beliefs, I say "god-given" meaning either by your Creator or given to you instinctually by nature).
2
@rickb.4168 Yes, prohibition is just one of many examples of changes, including limitations and exclusions, of our laws and rights being implemented. Even the rights to the "pursuits of life and liberty" can be and are legally taken away. Every right we are legally afforded is subject to being taken away. That's why the requirements to amend any part of our constitution exist.
2
@tiredofit1968 It becomes a mute point getting side-tracked with someone who does not believe in the existence of a Creator. For those that believe there is not, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to substitute "God-given" with "instinctually inspired" or "inspired/provided by nature". Otherwise, there no point in continuing the discussion with them, at least in my humble opinion.
2
@tiredofit1968 Thank you for remaining so respectful in your replies not only to me, but to others, as well.
2
@leohernandez1590 It was openly debated in front of the US Supreme Court several decades ago in regards to whether the right to bear arms was referencing the right towards the members of the militia or the members of the public. It did not take the SC very long to determine that it was intended for members of the public. If memory serves me, the Justices' legal reasoning was that the Bill of Rights, by design, are guarantees individual members of the public hold and the B of R was not written to guarantee the government, including it's well-regulated militia, anything.
2
@tiredofit1968 Yes, but the founders included the term "well-regulated" to describe the referenced militia. It's also already been determined that the Bill of Rights were written as guarantees of individuals. So, it's a mute point if the 2A was intended to provide a right to bear as to a government organized militia or to individuals. It, like all of the rights, are granted to individuals. Also, I believe it has been determined that at the time of writing, "well-regulated militia" meant simply an army of able-bodied men tasked with defending our new nation against invaders -- I'm probably not doing the definition justice, but I hope my intent is evident.
2
While I am personally in favor of placing restrictions, like being over 21yo, on the sale of semi-auto, high-powered rifles and placing limitations on those with prior felony convictions involving a firearm from being able to purchase future firearms, I 100% agree with this SCOTUS decision. People purchasing legal firearms should NOT have to provide, show or prove any type of specific need in order to make the purchase -- Self-defense and protection of property being implied already meets the need, and if it didn't, the 2A would have included wording saying so. FULL STOP.
1
@jojodixon1617 I have one point on your infringement discussion that I think is important to notate. When the founders provided people with the right to bear arms and that it could not be infringed upon or removed/revoked, they did NOT actually grant this right to everyone. While I personally believe with the basis of the 2A and the right to self-defense and preservation of property, when actually interpreting what might have been in the founding fathers' minds at the time is far more complex.
1
@honestnewsnet Yes, the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and Amendments, has been designed to be amended, or updated, if you will. Haven't the procedures to do just that been ratified and given inclusion into the document itself?
1
@motorizedbicyclenation53cu90 Your statements do not recognize that the US government has infringed upon the 2A right already -- practically countless times. To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your feelings about the 2A, but in order to have a discussed debate, I believe it's important to include information that is relevant.
1
Nothing in our constitution stirs up the intensity of our emotions like the 2A. I think it is important that not only legislative and judicial officials continue to have discussions on it, it's important for citizens to also have similar discussions. Because it elicits emotions, it is more important than ever for each of us to remain respectful during discussions. I know I am guilty of not always adhering to this, but I do try to remain respectful. If you've ever had to learn how to debate in school, you are likely aware of how difficult it is to be assigned to present the "For/Against" side that is the opposite of your actual opinion on the subject. However, you likely realized the advantages and the importance of objectivity when looking at the other side's arguments.
1
@honestnewsnet I just want to acknowledge that you have remained respectful in your replies, and that is definitely needed in any discussion of the merits of the 2A.
1
@davidscott9572 Actually, the Bill of Rights are not, as you stated, actually "set in stone". It's probably the one right that has been "tweaked" more than any other and it's the one amended right that has been taken away from both individuals and every citizen than any other right. As a quick example, the founders could not have likely envisioned air travel, specifically commercial aircraft and airlines, and if the 2A was "set in stone" and not amendable, the government couldn't enforce the restrictions on taking firearms on commercial flights. I support the basis of the 2A, but I also support the importance of including relevant information when discussing it.
1
@peterli7120 Actually, "moving to another country" is not a right we possess.
1
@murasakiiro447 I'm not sure which dictionary, legal or otherwise, you used for your definition of the term "amended", but it is not the full definition. Amended does not only mean "small changes".
1
@tiredofit1968 Where does it state in the US Constitution about "God-given"? Seriously asking. EDIT: That has been rephrased in the original comment, and in the spirit of transparency, I've chosen to add this edit instead of deleting my original reply.
1
@bl8388 I am completely lost. I feel as though I'm missing out on a good laugh but I need further explanation!! Lol I finally got it! Lol
1
@raytschudy8643 I believe the prior comment was referencing the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and I am curious as to where that wording is used. I'm not sure what you mean by "basically".
1
I'M ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM! I still side with Carlin in that they are all privileges. The reason I feel this way is b/c every freedom/right stated in the Bill of Rights is not possessed by 100% of the population. Every so-called right either has limitations that apply to everyone or limitations that apply to specific individuals. I'm not saying I disagree with those limitations being in place, but they are limitations nonetheless. For example, Freedom of Speech in the 1A gives individuals protection from retaliation by the government regarding the individuals' written and spoken statements, but there are limitations, like the "Fire!" example so often used, as well as, defamation of another. The right for individuals to be armed based upon the 2A also has exclusions and limitations. An example of that is individuals cannot possess certain types of weapons, and there are physical places where an individual cannot exercise this right, ie firearms on a commercial aircraft, public schools, all churches (in some states), govt buildings, etc. Again, I am not against some, or even most, of these limitations, but these exclusions do exist and additional exclusions are consistently being added. In addition, it's possible for legislation to amend or even remove these rights at any point in the future, meaning they will always technically be privileges we currently have.
1
@schlemmermaul5224 Of course "our rights" can be altered, and they actually have been altered since the Bill of Rights was signed. There are provisions for doing just that in the constitution.
1
@kenichitamagusuku3194 You are DEFINITELY correct in your statement that law enforcement officers enforce laws even though most do not have much knowledge regarding the laws they are enforcing. It's crazy that an officer can be fully trained in under 6 months, with little of that time going towards education on laws, but it takes 2 years of training to become a cosmetologist. Law agencies wouldn't need to rely on qualified immunity so much if they were better trained. There are countless videos on this platform of officers "enforcing" laws that don't actually exist AND it's obvious they don't. I am not trying to bash LEOs individually or as a whole. I am, however, pointing out a severe lack of training on the education of the laws they are assigned to enforce. It's amazing to think about how many citizens have had their rights blatantly trampled upon that weren't caught on tape. It's a big reason why many jurors no longer accept or believe an officer testifying in a criminal case -- people now need tangible evidence like DNA and video tape.
1
@rickb.4168 I fully understand your viewpoint regarding your stance on the existence of god. I think it's accurate, at least in this context, to interchange it with "given by nature" or "instinctually inspired" as in the preservation of one's self in the context of self-defense is inherently provided by nature (or inherently natural).
1
@vinceruland9236 First, I am in full agreement with your definition of "god-given". However, you may believe that the government cannot take or remove any parts of our previously given rights away, but this has happened since the Bill of Rights was enacted. Our government has continuously amended every stated right in the BoR. As two quick examples, there are restrictions on the types of arms we can possess and restrictions on where/places we can actively possess those "allowed" arms (commercial aircraft, banks, etc). There is not a single right that cannot be rescinded by legislation -- the process for doing so was ratified in the Constitution itself.
1
@rickb.4168 FYI, I was educated in both the UK and the US, and I was asking for clarification because I did not receive the traditional childhood education on the US Constitution and US Civics that most Americans had. A good portion of my knowledge of the US Constitution and federal government was attained outside of a traditional classroom. I asked the question because I truly wanted to be informed. It was not an attempt at being snarky.
1
@raytschudy8643 I understand what you are saying regarding the Declaration's inalienable rights and how you connect firearms to the right to Life. But, there is also the argument that when the Declaration was enacted and "all men are created equal" and the right to the "pursuit of happiness" were actually not in effect at the time the Declaration was signed. I'm not trying to split hairs, but I am a proponent of transparency and I try to view information and statements from various angles-- even when I personally disagree with them.
1
I'M ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM! I honestly cannot think of a single stated right that has not been taken away legally from an individual or a group of individuals. You said "no one can stop you from having them." But, there are countless cases of people being stopped from having them. My point is that our government, through our elected officials and legislators, can and have taken away those rights. It happens literally every day. It's why no one is walking around with a bazooka, at least not legally.
1
@vinceruland9236 I totally understood what you meant, and I actually feel the same way about it as you. I just feel it's important to look at most, if not all, issues from multiple angles. It's very difficult to remove our emotions in any discussion about a law or set of laws.
1
@gamebredduramax71 Yes, over the last century, there have been numerous discussions/debates in legal arenas over what or how the founders defined the word "arms" both at the time the 2A was written and how people believe those founders would interpret it today. I, personally, think that it's important that not just legislative and judicial officials continue to have these discussions, I think it's important for every day citizens to also talk and discuss them respectfully. The 2A can be and often is a very emotional subject, and I am guilty of letting my emotions temporarily override my own desire to remain respectful when discussing it. I'm sure I will do it in the future, and hopefully, the more it's discussed the less likely I am to do it.
1
I'M ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM! I probably should have stated that I may not personally be in agreement with many of my statements. In fact, from what you've stated in your comments, you and I likely feel the same way on much of it. However, when I try to discuss our laws, particularly our rights, I try to remove my personal beliefs from the equation and focus on interpreting the legal merits and definitions regarding our rights. If you ever had a debate class in school, it's not easy to be assigned the "For/Against" side that doesn't jive with your personal viewpoint, but it's necessary to give the subject/topic a fair shake. Although it's not actually documented as an inherent or given right, we will always retain and never lose the individual right to our personal beliefs and opinions. While the government can stop us from expressing our beliefs, they will never have the power stop us from forming our individual beliefs, opinions and reasonings. The fact that our Creator/Nature provided us with the ability to reason and to form a personal belief system is really is what separates us from other mammals/animals. That DEFINITELY doesn't mean the gov't, or portions of it, won't continue attempting to influence and shape our individual beliefs.
1
I'M ALL OUT OF BUBBLE GUM! Thank you. Same here :)
1
@FRAME5RS Well, the way things are going, that won't equate to much in the near future.
1