Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment:

"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

pri.org/stories/2013-09-18/ginsburg-draws-connection-between-immigration-reform-fair-pay-women
tumblr.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Fuck this fugly kike bitch. Considering the modern government is throwing its citizens to the wolves, we need the 2nd amendment now more than ever.
Go schlick to more muslims raping and murdering little kids.

aw man, that would've been a good get

derp

>(((Ginsburg)))

Got sauce on that quote? Fucking terrifying.

Who gives a fuck what she says. She most likely has no idea where the fuck she is or who the fuck she is 95% of the time.

Bitch is old enough to be Bill Cosby's plantation owner.

i came

Hitler was right. We fought for the wrong side and now we're reaping what we sowed.

>burg

If that's what the framers intended, they would have said:

>so long as their is a need for militias to protect sovereignty, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Had it been phrased like this, it would have coincided with her idea. But even one of the co-authors of the second amendment said the second amendment is like two wolves and a sheep decided what to eat for lunch, and the sheep is fully armed contesting their decisions. This is why it doesn't coincide her mental gymnastics of the intention of the second amendment.

She's extrapolation intentions that doesn't equate to advances of technology in need of protection against invasions. Using syllogism, you can interpret the right to free speech not equating to the advances of technology such as the phone or the internet since the right can be interpreted that it doesn't redress grievances at this point of time. It's all gimmicks.

pri.org/stories/2013-09-18/ginsburg-draws-connection-between-immigration-reform-fair-pay-women

That's one source.
Just as clarification, I personally don't own a firearm, yet. I just haven't had the money for one but do plan on purchasing one in the near future. I am an advocate for the second amendment and I think her argument ignores the historical context of that amendment that makes it clear that the authors supported individuals to bear arms. I was just wondering what others thought of it.

Wrong place. That's why there's Sup Forums.

Eat a dick. This is a random board and my post is a random one. Go back to school summerfag

>1 out of 9

We already knew she is a liberal retard

Going to play devil's advocate here, her argument has nothing to do with advancements in weaponry, which is a stupid argument, but that the second amendment only applies to well regulated militias because at the time, that was how the US fought the Revolutionary War and it was necessary for citizens to be part of militias, a concept which no longer holds true save for the National Guard.

Half the court is Jewish, user. (((Coincidentally,))) half the court are liberal, judicial-review fucks.

This, and when you call them kikes and Jews and cucks it only lets people know your opinion is to be disregarded.

I support gun laws and think CA and NY need to loosen up but if I call people cucks and kikes then they will ignore me.

Try to argue like a non retard.

bring it motherfuckers

Only 3 but I get what you're saying

It's cool that we let nine old people decide what words mean for us.

Eat a bullet, jewburg

>calling a spade a spade is grounds for having your argument invalidated

>>>reddit

Am i not allowed to point out coincidences anymore?

tumblr.com/

There you go faggot. Your political correctness policing holds no water here

Seriously need to stop letting women be judges.
They are a fucking disgrace.

>It's cool that we let nine old people decide what words mean for us.
When their actual job is supposed to be deciding appealed court cases by using the document those words are on.

Ruth Ginsburg is a cunt, and is forgetting about the REAL reason for us to have guns...to fight against tyranny from within, ie, our own government. If our government is the only entity to have guns, we are slaves, and slavery is for the niggers that vote to the left.

And this is why Trump is "so unpopular". Trump calls people names, just like the left, and the (probably) retarded "simple people" are hearing things the way they understand them...which is often vulgar.

That's how it works now.

If you aren't totally PC then you can't be right about anything.

Don't support gay marriage? Well then you don't get to be upset by 50 of them being murdered because you're such a bigot.

It shouldn't be, but it is. Just argue it "properly" so you can at least get some words out before they block you
You know damn well you are focusing on the Jew factor and generalizing and you know tumble fucks will just use that as ammo saying only rasis folk want guns
I'm trying to help you dumbfuck

Yet the entire point of Trump's popularity is that he doesn't give a shit about being PC

i see we have a brilliant philosopher here.. Bertrand Russell is it you?

Agreed 100%. Ginsburg is one of the few remaining intellectuals in power, and right wingers despise that. Though her historical interpretation of the second amendment is sound, it doesn't regard the argument behind gun rights activists in modern day politics. They aren't saying whether the amendment is a justification, rather that average citizens need to protect themselves from 'criminals' or 'terrorists'. This argument bases itself on the idea that people cannot equally defend themselves when faced with a potential threat of an armed individual that may bring malcontent on the average citizen. To this I would mention that an armed citizen is highly more likely to harm themselves or others than actually face an armed threat. However, for those citizens who do face an armed threat, even though they may be few, do we hinder their ability by refusing them a weapon? Firstly, an assault weapons ban does not hinder this. They could have a handgun, even concealed still. Secondly, there are security forces (security, police, military) that are trained to use these weapons. Thirdly, is an armed citizen equally mitigating to an armed threat? Not necessarily. more often than not, negotiation or discussion can minimize a threat. Even school teachers are now told to defend themselves by whatever means necessary (throwing chairs, books, tables at intruders).

Goddam tl;dr

>Agreed 100%
Stopped reading here.

100% correct.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is the purpose and intention of the second amendment is retarded.

Fourthly, this doesn't regard radical and supremacists ideology that the opportunity to end a threat to the largely white (or whatever demographic is dominant in the situation) as necessary. But that ideology is set for fail in the reality of the demographics that makeup the untied states

if you like tight gun laws then move to mexico

More than likely you did read it. Or you made a quick assumption and stopped reading like you do with every political opinion that is seemingly in disagreement with your own preconceived notions. Then again, you are on Sup Forums. My suggestion is that return to falling to trans or beast porn and forget this thread

I was being facetious. He is popular because he is calling people out, and not being a cuck like everyone he was running against. He is popular because he is not holding back.

What's the point when liberals are trying to bring mexico here.
Let's face the facts. They just don't want white people to have guns.

issue with mexico is, that due to the weak border control and the huge US marekt for drugs and the easy access to guns in the US, you have a ton of US guns in mexico.

I don't say that americans bring drugs and crime or that they are rapists, but some love to sell guns to criminals.

>one of the few remaining intellectuals in power
This is where I stopped because I bet the rest of the intellectuals in power are all left-leaning, emotional progressives, right?

...

Thanks in part to the fast and furious program.

And that still doesn't explain how cartels get full autos and explosives in such large quantities.

she is the kind of woman that has a fantasy of being raped by a black man.

jews are winning their war againts America long time, Media (news, entertaiment, ect...), Banks, politics, now the constitution, that America that was build no longer exist because is has being taken by foreigners that I agreed.

I'll take a bite. If you and I are both faced with the potential of being robbed, and the thief knows I'm armed with a firearm, and you're not, they'd more likely than not go after you. You can try and talk to them but if they are stealing from you for necessity, whether they need shit to sell for rent, bills or for drugs or whatever reason, you won't be able to talk them out of it easily. Also, if you think throwing a table at someone with a gun pointed to you is plausible, you're deluded.

Now I skipped over one of your arguments, but don't think I'm going to ignore it. This is the one about gun owners harming themselves. That same argument that you should ban something because it could potentially harm the owner can be applied to literally anything: cars, motorcycles, knives, swimming pools, pencils, you name it.

Can someone break this down?

>one more liberal judge and this will be the prevailing view of the Supreme Court.

I can't wait.

...

privilege to bear arms

>sure bud

>disliked by college cucks, welfare queens, and women who will vote for vagina

oy vey

The cartels gets full autos and explosives from the Mexican armed forces. The recruits goes in, trained in how to use guns and explosives, steals the ordnance and go work for the cartels.

Good amount of these weapons comes from other corrupted states where weapons are stolen and ended up smuggled to various cartels.

maybe this earlier version makes it clear, what they might have aimed for:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

> welfare queens
you mean like wallstreet and wallmart, apple, oil companie, etc. owners, who pay almost no taxes, get giant bailouts or subcedies and use public recources like roads, the police, etc. for free?

I was hoping to have the picture that was posted explained.

Militaryfag here. the .50cal is the only part I care about

And her thoughts on the the Third Amendment?

I like how she states there is a purpose for the Second Amendment, then gives her opinion on why it's outdated. Great! I have opinions as well. So what. Use the system to abolish it then.

This nation has never had American soldiers forced into the homes of its citizenry for quarter, but I'd be damned if they tried. Or is this thought process via the Third Amendment just antiquated?

>even school teachers are told to defend themselves by any means

Right, wouldn't you?

>why take away a weapon from people who need defending?

Exactly our fucking point

>wouldn't a person with a gun harm themselves more than help?

No...? Prove that. Its never happened. Remember the 'why take a weapon away from someone who needs it' bit?

>I agree 100%

Hypocrite.

I'm pretty sure he meant the leeches on society that don't contribute any sort of innovation, goods, or services to society yet ride through life on the backs of hardworking Americans.

She can be the first one through my door when they come to collect if she feels that strongly.

I meant the africans and hispanics.

And it's not like hillary is going to crack down on wall street or whatever

This. These spineless cowards afraid of weapons should be the ones that have to collect firearms. The point of that amendment is so I can protect myself from such tyranny and I wouldn't mind the pricks wanting me to not have the right to defend myself personally grab it from me and other Americans and in turn become the source of blood we use to water the tree of liberty with.

The full text of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

She is not entirely wrong. The second amendment - as we can tell both from the text and the correspondence of those who ratified it - was created for the purpose of establishing state and local volunteer (or draft) militias that could protect the state in times of war. Part of that was money, as she said - the U.S. government came into existence piss broke, and could not have realistically raised the money to pay for a professional standing army if it had wanted to. But another big part of it was that our founders were afraid that a standing army could be used as part of a coup or so some such and would be more of a threat than it was worth, and did not want any such army.

Long since then, our federal government has stopped being broke and in fact now spends more on its professional standing army than makes any fucking sense whatsoever. Which means two things:
1) Militias are obviously no longer necessary for the defense of the state, and
2) Militias are no longer capable of defending us from the state.

The second amendment is absolutely outdated, in that it can no longer fulfill either of the two purposes for which it was penned. And that would make a compelling argument for considering legislative change, but certainly not for judicial invalidation, as the judiciary has no power to rule that laws have become "outdated."

So by Ginsberg's reading of 2A, a well regulated militia is 'necessary' - and a standing Army Navy AirForce and USMC are not.
So, easy, disband the unconstitutional regular forces, and make every citizen exercise their right to bear and be the Militia of the USA.

It's simple. It's stating the right of the people (militia) and the right of the individual shall not be infringed. In the case of the Second Amendment, that is the right to own and operate arms (guns). Why? Because the right to defend oneself, and by proxy a group of people, the militia, against forces, is a God-given right for all humans that shall not been alienated by the government.

As Americans, we have the right to buy and own and use weapons (guns) to defend ourselves from attacker(s), even if they reside in government.

Google
>The Battle of Athens
for a good idea of how bad government can subjugate its citizenry

Right, GM makes shit quality cars, goes down the sink, and then literially costs the American people twice as much in one instance of being bailed out as welfare does for the entire country for several years?

Fucking backasswords thinking. I bet you supported the bailouts.

I'm looking for a breakdown of the grammar lesson behind the picture as opposed to anything else.

And how does that relate to the individual at all?

The individual right to bear arms? Right to counsel? Right to due process? Etc.

You forget that the original 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are for the people. Individually and as a collective of free people exercising their individual rights.

And militias are the people. The Army (military) is different and always will be. You can't quit the Army, for example, willy-nilly. The militia is a group of individuals who can come and go to protect the State or its rights against other States or the federal government.

>ginsburg

Look at Scalia's writing on the recent Heller case and the recent McDonald case. He details the grammar to a tee and why the founders wrote it that way.

...

gun control in real life

I don't agree with the bailouts. I support a free market and I'd probably agree with you that they're the result of a crony capitalist system.

That aside, your argument is full of shit.

"The auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in."

Do you know who said that? President Obama. If I give you five bucks, and you pay me back six in a week after interest, you haven't cost me anything. It's that simple. Now this isn't true because of the $80 billion we spent, we only recovered $70 billion, so we lost $10 billion, which is a lot of money. Now, how much does welfare cost the US annually? According to a UC Berkeley study, $152 billion. Turn off the Young Turks and actually research this shit. It's simple math.

#rekt

what he said.... kind of.

My point was, that I find it strange that the biggest walfare queens, who get millions in benefits, aren't called out, but a single mother of 4 is the problem!?

Fucking kek

So gun control brings this every 10 years or so, while no gun control brings an equal amount of deaths in less than a month.

And you think no gun control is the way to go?

Let me ask u something . The fuck are we gonna domagainst our own military they would fuck our shit up so bad they wouldnt even have to look rhis way and theyed desrroy a neiborhood in miutes

Substitute drugs for guns.

someone posted this earlier...

You never studied

and I had to think this right away!

What's the situation here? My house is burning, but I'm somewhere else, and somehow I know of the fire before the fire department?

Pretty sloppy analogy

I'm not American.
But she's kinda right, although that doesn't mean they should be banned. The gun violence problem in the US is one of culture. Just look at Switzerland where people need to keep their guns after military service, yet gun violence is nonexistent there.

>Substitute drugs for guns.

what is your point?

Countries who have more gun control than the US on average have much less gun deaths.

With drugs it is actually the opposite. Countries with less anti drug laws, like portugal, swizerland or the neatherlands, they have less crime regardings drugs, less drug use and less drug deaths, than the US where they have a huge war against drugs policy!

No nignogs, BTW

Those arms are disgusting

>Countries who have more gun control than the US on average have much less gun deaths.

Ever heard of a little place called Mexico?

They do have some, mostly Ethiopian immigrants and it did result in an increase in crime, but mostly petty crime, since Africans are incompetent

Who gives a fuck about the constitution? Some old ass shit, written in outdated times, by a bunch of morons.

Well meme'd, friendster. :-)

Conservative interpreting the Constitution - this limits the government and expresses the people's rights.

Liberal interpreting the Constitution - says here I'm God.

and mexico doesn't count because?

>Ever heard of a little place called Mexico?

You mean that place where they have a ton of US guns smuggled over the border and huge cartels but still less gun deaths than in the US?

typical revisionist liberal who thinks they know better than the founders of the country. a group of literal geniuses

Especially all those bullet button CA legal ones. The cartels really raise hell with those.

Because only white counties are held accountable for their problems and brown countries get a free pass because of their inherent inferiority.