Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules

So, the first amendment gives you the right to free speech, and yet inciting a riot or other dangerous forms of speech are still not protected.

Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor. Dangerous things can and should be protected. Not all weapons need be for the public, as I’m pretty sure no one would be okay with any civilian having their own nuke stockpile. I don’t see why we can’t dial it back a bit more to try and reduce access to guns when we’ve continually seen how much destruction they can cause.

I've been saying this for a while here: the only way anyone can see gun control laws pass within a normal human lifetime is to have all minorities purchase and bear arms, and then go out and protest peacefully with said arms.
The only way you can have Republicans vote against their own interests is to appeal to their racism/sexism/genderism; this is what the Black Panthers did in California and how Republicans unanimously voted in favor of gun control. All gun control laws stem from racism, and this fact needs to be leveraged.
- This is exactly why Ronald Reagan instituted gun laws in the in California. The Black Panthers started showing up to the state capitol with guns and there were no laws against it.
  
  These days the cops would just show up and kill them all because they felt “threatened.”
  
  The police aren't interested in a fair fight.
- 100% in agreement. Not just minorities… everyone that leans left too. I’d really like to see some funding go towards providing free firearms training courses for the trans community.
That is common sense.
We can argue whether or not it's still relevant today/how it needs to be changed, but trying to claim that the second amendment doesn't very, very heavily imply firearms is disingenuous at best.
Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor.
Not according to the Supreme Court:
Heller - 2008:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
McDonald - 2010 (because Heller involved Washington D.C., a 2nd ruling showed that it also applies to states as well).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
Caetano - 2016 - This one is fascinating. I wish more people read it. Woman had an abusive ex, bought a taser to protect herself. MA went after her arguing "tasers didn't exist back then, 2nd Amendment doesn't apply." Supremes "um actually'd" them hard.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
"The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
Bruen - 2022
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Sooo...
When you look at all 4 of these rulings together...
Washington D.C. can't ban an entire class of weapon, or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
- The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
  That seems to conflict with Miller though? A short barrel shotgun apparently wasn't standard military issue so it wasn't legal for possession?
  The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
  The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.
  
  New precedent trumps old precedent. It's why Brown v Board is the law of the land and Plessy v Ferguson isn't. There (to my knowledge) hasn't been a challenge to the NFA that's reached the Supreme Court since that Caetano case in 2016 and the court hasn't explicitly struck down the prior precedent of its legality, so it still stands based on the other points in the ruling. Even the current NFA-related cases against bump stock and pistol brace bans working through courts are based more on whether the ATF can consider them as NFA items rather than whether the NFA itself can be considered constitutional, so it's likely to stick around.
  
  There's a lot of confusion over "legal".
  A short barrelled shotgun or short barrelled rifle can be legally owned, you just have to pay a tax stamp on it. $200 was a LOT of money when Miller passed, not so much these days.
  That doesn't even get into "Non-NFA Firearms" that are designed by the manufacturer to ride the line between legal and illegal.
  For example... If you take a Mossberg 590 shotgun and chop the stock down to a pistol grip, and don't pay the tax, that's a felony.
  If you take a Mossberg 590 and shorten the barrel too much without paying the tax stamp, that's a felony.
  The 590 Shockwave is a "Non-NFA firearm" that is perfectly legal without a tax stamp even though it has a pistol grip and a short barrel.
  https://www.mossberg.com/590-shockwave-6-shot-50659.html
  It's legal because it was made this way, not modified to be this way and it fits precisely in the overall length definition.
  If you were to remove the pistol grip and put on a shoulder stock? No tax stamp? Felony.
Wild to see liberal interpretation go from "militia means military" to "arms doesn't even mean guns". At least acknowledges it as a right of the individual, which is a step in the right direction I guess. Hell of a take when even the strictest court precedent in US v Miller acknowledges it as the right of the individual to military arms, curious how this take spins the militia line.
- Wild to see Conservative interpretation go from "well regulated doesn't mean well regulated" to "militia means me."
  
  "Go to" as if I didn't just cite that its most stringent supreme court interpretation from 100 years ago establishes it as a right of the individual. And I ain't no fucking fascist.
- Miller is largely set aside for Heller in 2008, which defined the 2nd Amendment as not requiring militia membership and that the core reason for the 2nd is self defense.
- The court recently said nationally legal abortion was unconstitutional. Do you agree? If not, curious how you spin that since SCOTUS decisions make right.

The Supreme Court has already allowed restrictions on automatic weapons pre-1986, and there is no ability for manufacturers to sell new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986. Quit bending over backwards to try to make bad (and/or) selective legal theories make sense. They don't and you're a shill. Guns are an issue, and if you think they aren't you can get fukt.

SCOTUS upheld the NFA of 1934 because the appellant in the case had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered, and no one representing his case even made it to court. The court literally only heard the arguments from the gov't. That's an incredibly shady way to get a law past SCOTUS review.
The general public can buy fully automatic weapons, you just have to fill out the proper ATF forms and be prepared to pay a really, really large sum of money. Tens of thousands of dollars.
https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/
- I saw you argue further down in this thread that the Supreme Court would not allow the restriction of entire "weapon classes". Well that doesn't stand up to scrutiny when they already disallowed the sale of any new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986.
  I hate these little semantics arguments and word games. This isn't an issue in other developed countries for a reason. Allowing the kind of debate pervert logic you are employing only serves to muddy the waters and removed society from solving problems with clear, demonstrable solutions. Grow the fuck up, seriously.
  
  They didn't though. The general public can absolutely buy a fully automatic weapon, you just have to fill out the proper ATF forms and pay the INCREDIBLY high taxes on it. Tens of thousands of dollars.
  https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/
  
  I watch Forgotten Weapons every fucking day. I am intimately familiar with both the FOPA and FAWB. Both of which repeatedly and continuously stood up to constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly disallowed gun manufacturers from selling new "automatic weapons" (aka a class of bearable arms) to the general public. Additionally the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was repeatedly found to be constitutional, and the only reason new weapons that meet those classifications are sold today is because the FAWB had an automatic sunset clause. It could legally be reinstated by congress at any time.
  While it is true that you can get an FFL and purchase a pre-1986 automatic weapon with a transferable tax stamp, the Supreme Court has BANNED the sale of all new automatic weapons. Therefore, your previous argument doesn't hold water. Take the L and move on.
  Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA)
  Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB)
  
  Tell me you didn't read my link without telling me you didn't read my link:
  "Depending on the type of FFL, and if the FFL-holder becomes an Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) the FFL-holder can purchase and sell machine guns, regardless of when they were made (more on this below), and they can even legally make their own machine guns or lawfully convert current firearms into full-autos. The best part about getting an automatic weapon as an FFL is that you can get it at dealer cost and fast."
  
  Tell me you don't understand the meaning of semantics without telling me you don't understand the meaning of semantics...
  You literally argued that the Supreme Court would strike down any need for specialty licensing for purchasing weapons in this same thread as well. Jesus fucking christ. Did you grow up underneath power lines or live in a house with leaded paint or something?
  If you need a FFL in order to purchase or trade in automatic weapons then by default those weapons are functionally banned from being sold to the general public. This is precisely why I lead with my comment about jerking off over bad legal arguments that tip-toe around the enforcement of real world solutions that can actually have a legitimate impact on gun violence. So again, from the bottom of my heart, get fukt. 😘
  
  Any member of the general public can apply for an FFL and be allowed to buy a machine gun of any vintage, the only limiter is money and the usual background check.
  Again, it's not a hard concept to grasp. You can do it, I can do it, anyone who isn't otherwise barred from gun ownership (felon, mental defective, drug user, etc. etc.) can do it.
  
  If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.
  It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.
  The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.
  It’s a Right, not a “right”*.
  Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?

"Clearly says" just as long as you ignore the part about being in a well regulated militia.

I suppose you support felons being allowed to own firearms again too, right?

As long as it's a well-regulated militia of felons, that's fine. /s
- Ah yes, the Proud Boys...
I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city "domestic terrorism", bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public "felony intimidation". Shit, it's a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I'm against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I'm against denying them the right to vote because of it.
Again, the word "militia" meant something different back then, and the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that Militia membership is NOT a requirement.
And no, felons shouldn't own weapons. If it were it up to me I'd expand it.
If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he was arrested previously on a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, bought more guns, and shot up the place.
I'd argue that previous gun charges, felony OR missemeanor, should bar you from future gun ownership. You've already proven you can't be trusted with a gun.
Are you interested in understanding the historical context and meaning of the second amendment?
Or do you just want to argue against it?
This is a serious question.
- There are ~2 centuries of US history before the Heller decision.... Don't forget that historical context.
  
  There was 3+ centuries of slavery in the US prior to the 14th amendment. Until the Civil Rights Acts, Jim Crow laws had been upheld for a century.
  We can also look at that historical context and see that the gov't was often motivated by systemic racism to enact gun control.
  Historical context isn't a panacea.
  
  Ok, but do you actually think that's what Heller was about? Preventing the government from enacting racist gun control laws? Really?
  Why don't we ask Philando Castile about how much Heller helped him (side note, no support from the NRA on that one. Huh.).
  
  The point of Heller was saying that guns in common use couldn't be banned (and was affirmed to apply to states as well as D.C. in McDonald v. Chicago); many of the gun control laws that prevented ownership of firearms were racist in origin, and so saying that the gov't can't do that thing has the effect of invalidating laws rooted in racism.
  One of the people that was originally part of the Heller case was a black community activist, and the reason she was removed from the case was lack of standing. She had not actually applied for a permit to own a firearm in the city--because she knew it was illegal--so she got kicked from the case. Heller was the only one of the original plaintiffs that tried to apply for a permit, hence the reason he's the face. (Heller--the person--was/is a douchebag.)
  The fact that cops murder black people is a problem, sure. Do you think that they're going to stop if black people aren't armed? The NRA is a rotten organization; I'd recommend the Firearms Policy Coalition as being one that's more representative of the interests of gun owners, rather than christian nationalists.
  
  Yeah. Scalia went against his claims of originalism in Heller in order to protect minority gun ownership. Fuck off.
  
  He didn't do it for that purpose, but that's still the legal effect.
  I don't get it why so many libs--and I mean that in the worst possible way--seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed is going to have good outcomes. Defund the police because ACAB but also only cops should have guns because they're totally trustworthy with lethal ordnance. Meanwhile, those of us that have lived outside of upper-middle class urban areas know that cops can't arrive quickly in an emergency, or simply don't.
  
  seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed
  Did I say that?
  You fucking idiots act like the US is the only country that exists in the world. Why don't you look at gun violence/crime in countries where even the cops don't have guns.
  The US is way too far gone to ever go to something like that. Half of the country has made firearms a defining feature of their personality. They would literally rather die (and probably take their entire family with them).
- Not OP but both.
  I am interested in the historical context, but I doubt it will change my opinion that it is fucking stupid to have something like that as part of a constitution.
  
  I would suggest reading, "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America" by Adam Winkler (ISBN ‎ 0393345831). The author has extensive end notes so you can check his sources. (There are also a number of books out there about the use of arms in the struggle for civil rights, but that's not directly relevant.)
  This is greatly condensed. First, under English common law at the time, it was understood that the right to own arms for self defense was an individual right. The English king had previously disarmed groups (Catholics, I think? I'm not sure off the top of me head), and though it had taken a while, English courts had ruled that it was not legal for the gov't to seize arms from the people. In the Americas, people were just armed. Most people had guns (certain anti-gun researchers have falsely claimed otherwise, but their claims simply don't stand up), although "people" here is defined as white, male landowners, since women didn't really have rights, and black people were largely enslaved. The militias of the time were *ALL able-bodied men. The people were legally obligated to provide their own weapons--which meant weapons fit for military service--and to both practice on their own, and muster with the rest of the militia when they were called to do so. The colonists were largely in charge of defending themselves, because it was expensive and slow to send the British army and navy over when colonists had skirmishes with the French or Native Americans. (I'm not making a values judgement on the colonists being colonizers and taking Native American land; just saying that's the context.) The first real battle of the American Revolution occurred at a period when England was trying to exert more control over the colonies, and decided to seize the weapons that the the colonists had been amassing. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was specifically that; an attempt to seize weapons from the militias.
  The people that wrote the constitution intended for the people to be armed, and for the people to be armed with military weapons. Self defense was clearly a consideration, but it wasn't the only consideration. When you read the things that the leaders of the revolution and authors of the constitution wrote regarding arms, it's clear that they never intended it to be a right of the government; after all, the constitution gave the government the right to raise an army, so why would you need to have an amendment that also gives the gov't the right to have arms?
  In regards to the violence - I'd argue that guns are not the problem, but are only tools. Switzerland and Finland both have heavily armed populations, but have very, very low murder rates, and very low rates of violent crime in general. The US combines a large number of guns with uniquely bad social and economic conditions; if we effectively address the social and economic conditions, then the issues with violent crime will largely disappear on their own, without the removing the civil rights.
  
  Switzerland and Finland both have heavily armed populations
  How do their laws around firearms and gun control compare? Is it apples to apples?
  
  It is not, no. There are no countries where it's apples-to-apples. Each country is going to have differing gun laws and regulations, so there's no way to make an absolutely perfect comparison.
  Having spoken to Finnish gun enthusiasts, you need to go to a range and shoot a certain number of times in a year in order to get permits to buy, but there are a limited number of ranges, and the slots fill up very quickly. But once you have permits, things like silencers are available without issue. It's not significantly harder to get tactical/assault-style rifles than it is to get pistols. Background checks don't seem to be any more significant than the checks that you have to go through in the US. Finns have a strong culture of hunting, as well as shooting Russians, so there's quite a few gun owners in Finland.
  Switzerland has conscription, so most people end up having to serve a year or so in the military, and then have the option of keeping their service rifle. Each canton seems to do their own permitting, but in general it's not terribly difficult to get permits. Again, it's not significantly more onerous to get a permit than it is to pass a background check in the US. The Swiss also have a strong culture of competitive shooting. Switzerland in general is pretty monocultural; it's not easy to emigrate to Switzerland.
  Both countries also have very strong social safety nets, and are significantly flatter economically; there isn't the same kind of economic gulf between the poor and the wealthy in either country that we see in the US. Both countries have a judicial system that's geared towards reform rather than punishment. Both countries have some form of socialized medicine, so that families aren't going bankrupt because mom has breast cancer, or dad had a car accident. There's far, far less religious extremism in both countries (religious extremism really drives the moralistic attitudes in the US towards crime and poverty).
  Conversely, we can look at the UK and Australia to see what happens when you remove firearms, but don't correct social conditions. (England, in particular, has been cutting all social programs.) Violent crime rates--defined as robbery, murder, assault/battery, and forcible rape--are roughly similar in the UK and Australia to the US, although the US has a far higher murder rate overall. Violent crime in the US is more lethal, but the lack of guns doesn't have any effect on the overall violent crime rates. Rates of forcible rape in Australia are, IIRC, rather significantly higher than they are in the US. (A caveat is that you can never do a perfect comparison in crimes between countries, because the way that a crime is defined in the US will be different than it is defined in e.g. Canada. So these are rough comparisons, but essential correct, even if not perfect in all the particulars.)
  
  Thank you that was an interesting read and I learned something new.

Arms. Not guns.

We've decided it's not okay for someone to have a Patriot missile, nuclear landmine, warships, and many other arms.

Not according to the Supreme Court, over and over again.
Heller - 2008:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
McDonald - 2010 (because Heller involved Washington D.C., a 2nd ruling showed that it also applies to states as well).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
Caetano - 2016 - This one is fascinating. I wish more people read it. Woman had an abusive ex, bought a taser to protect herself. MA went after her arguing "tasers didn't exist back then, 2nd Amendment doesn't apply." Supremes "um actually'd" them hard.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
"The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
Bruen - 2022
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Sooo...
When you look at all 4 of these rulings together...
Washington D.C. can't ban an entire class of weapon, or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
- Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
  But I thought it was a Right not a right*
  
  Rights can be removed for criminal behavior. This is why we have prisons.
  
  So you agree that even "absolute" rights should definitely have limits and be denied to certain people and we're just arguing about where that line should be then?
  
  So does the Supreme Court, they just haven't found a restriction they approve of yet.
  The next ones to watch would be the one on domestic abusers. Or the one on drug users.
  https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1208501397/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abusers
  https://apnews.com/article/gun-ban-drugs-federal-appeals-hunter-biden-f26f8b7488615785602003932efd881a
  In the case of the former, I hope they uphold it.
  In the case of the latter, I hope they make an exception for states where marijuana is legal.
  But with this court, who knows what they'll do?
- Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
  No they don't, at the pro-gun communities insistance.
  
  They really do, and I say that as a gun owner. You are not free to skate on the criminal background check.
  
  As a gun owner, I can sell you a gun tomorrow and you will not have to pass a background check. Private gun sales happen all over.
  
  Private gun sales, at least in my state, still require an FFL and a background check to be legal.
  https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_166.435
  
  So then it's only a law some places.
  
  State by state, and in Florida it's county by county(!)
  https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
  
  A clear majority of citizens support universal background checks, but all that matters is that the gun lobby doesn't.
  
  Oh, I agree, and I'd like to go further by including things in the background check that aren't currently present but should be.
  Did you know, if someone goes through an involuntary mental health hold that is not ordered by a judge, that does NOT appear on a background check? Seriously. That shit needs to get fixed.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
  "A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, and he responded, "I want to murder and commit suicide."[65] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][64][66]
  The New York State Police did not seek an order from a state court to remove guns from Gendron's possession.[67][68] The mental health evaluation was not an involuntary commitment, which would have prohibited him from buying guns under federal law.[67]"
  
  You're ignorant
- Except that there are other restrictions and as has already been pointed out, you still can't own any weapon you want. This fact is something you should be admitting and grappling with. You can't simply ignore it, as you seem to want to do. It may be that there's an intellectually coherent way around it, but if so I have yet to see you or anyone else, let alone the SCOTUS, lay it out.
  This intellectual inconsistency is, I would argue, a direct result of the fact that all of the decisions you mention above are based on a faulty reading of the 2nd.
  
  You can own any weapon you want, provided you're a legal gun owner and you're willing to fill out the proper ATF forms and pay the (exorbitant) fees and taxes.
  You want a machine gun? Here's how you get a machine gun:
  https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/
  You want a silencer? Here's how you get a silencer:
  https://www.silencershop.com/how-to-buy-a-silencer
  Clean record? The only limiter is money and how willing you are to do paperwork. ;)
- I assume you agree with SCOTUS on Dredd Scott and ending Roe v. Wade since that's what makes things right.
  
  It doesn't matter what I think about Supreme Court decisions, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. They rule the way they rule, it's up to smarter people than me to work around that.
  I could see, in the wake of Roe v. Wade, a modern underground railroad shuttling women from red states to get the proper care they need. Some states are already attempting to block that, but then that would run afoul of "freedom of movement."
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
  
  Got it. "I am not a lawyer or a judge, so I can't say if Dredd Scott was a bad decision."
  I think the rest of us can figure out that not letting slaves go free was a bad decision despite not being lawyers or judges.
  
  Nope, I'm not a lawyer or a judge so my opinion on legal matters is 100% irrelevant. It would be nice if more people on the Internet could recognize that. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and while yours may be very important to you, nobody else wants to see it.

If you're gonna quote the right, then quote all of it, it's for the purpose of a militia.

Last I checked none of the UA citizens are in one because we have a very well organized military instead which was the immediate down fall of what were typically loosely organized groups.

We have well-regulated militias.
They're called the National fucking Guard.
Every Tom, Dick, and wife-beating Harry doesn't need to walk around with enough firepower to massacre a neighborhood.
The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact. Society and technology have changed since it was written, and we aren't worried about needing the family musket to form a citizen militia to repel the Brits invading from Canada. And even by the end of the Revolutionary War, the myth of farmer militias gave way to the reality of a professional army.
- The national guard would be considered an army. It is not a permanent war economy army like our Army, Navy, Marines, but it is an army nonetheless. Permanent war armies are a relatively modern product.
  
  Which is maybe a clue that amendment doesn't really make sense in the modern world.
  
  Personally, I’m much more for dismantling the permanent war economy and reducing the standing army by a few orders of magnitude. So much of our resources are stolen to keep a permanent war footing and maintain our our ~800 overseas bases. With the amount of money we spend to secure global military dominance, every single person in the entire country could have the worlds best healthcare, fully paid, no copays or anything.
  So tbh, I’d rather move back towards a militia.
  
  As much as I dislike the 2nd Ammendment, American prosperity is built on those overseas bases and the security that they provide to our allied countries. The modern globalized economy, which has benefited us IMMENSELY as a country is built on the promise that in exchange for America keeping the world safe for trade, almost all major countries use the American Dollar to back their own currency, and all oil is paid for in US Dollars.
  The real problem is that we aren't taxing the ultra-wealthy who are the ones getting all the money from the advantages of that globalized economy.
- I personally wouldn't call that a militia. My understanding of a militia is that it's a small group of people 20-40 max.
  The national guard is significantly larger and much much more well organized.
  That being said I agree with the rest of what you've said.
- The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact.
  This is really a the core of the current problem, I think. We'll never get enough votes for an amendment of any kind IMO. R would vote against an amendment from D saying the sky was blue. So now we're at a place where turning schools into prisons due to all the security measures and similar bandaids are the only things we can do.
  
  No meaningful amendment has been passed since the 80s or 90s I think. The only one that has was on the books literally from the 1800’s and was only recently ratified.
  There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything
  
  There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything
  Truly a sad state of affairs, and to use the language of the other poster, it does turn the constitution into a suicide pact from a certain point of view.
I mean, I know it’s pretty common to reinterpret things such as that through a modern lens, and I support this law that’s being overturned, but well-regulated has a very specific definition in 18th century America, and it is not what you describe. Not to mention that ARMING EVERYONE (white, at least, the rest weren’t considered people by those racist fuckheads) was an explicit goal of the US, in order to support their settler colonial project.
- AND in 18th century America they very specifically meant AR15 guns and similar weapons!
  
  Well, it specifically included the right to own cannons, and full on gunships also. So, I don’t think they would have been too concerned about a single gun, when they intended for people to own what were then the most destructive weapons available.
  
  Caetano - 2016
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
  "The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
Not according to the Supreme Court:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
Here's the confusion...
Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, things like "well regulated" and "militia" meant different things than they do now.
The militia was comprised of all able bodied men who could be called up at any time for defense. They were literally members of the general public.
Well regulated meant "well armed and equipped".
So knowing this, the 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense.
"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."
Reads as:
"A well armed and equipped populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The key phrase here is "right of the people". All people.
- But arguably, women are not subject to being called up due to not in the selective service. So take the guns away from females. /s
  
  Pretty sure this all pre-dates selective service, but let's check...
  Wow, yeah, conscription didn't start until the Civil War in 1861, and the Selective Service itself, not until WWI in 1917:
  https://www.britannica.com/event/Selective-Service-Acts
  
  Huh, almost like things can and should change after it was written. So fuck the 2nd amendment and anyone that defends it.
  
  I think it was Jefferson who argued the Constitution should have been re-written every 10 years?
  Let me see if I can find the quote...
  19 years...
  "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
  Madison was the one to kill that idea.
  But as it stands, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. You don't have to like it, and there are things you can do about it:
  Get an Amendment started. You have to get 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Then get it ratified by 34 State Houses.
  Get it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. You do this by electing Democratic Presidents in '24 and '28. That gives a solid Democratic White House until 2032.
  The Supreme Court leans 6-3 Conservative.
  The two oldest judges are Thomas (75) and Alito (73). If they are replaced by a Democratic President, that will turn the court back 5-4 Liberal.
  When you look at the next three oldest though: Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68), Kagan (63).
  It doesn't do much good to flip Thomas and Alito in the next 10 years, then lose Sotomayor, Kagan, and a reliable swing vote like Roberts 5-10 years after that.
  So now you're looking at having to have Democrats hold the White House in '24, '28, '32, '36 and possibly '40.
  
  Doesn't writing that all out make you want to cry? The futility of being able to prevent my child from growing up knowing they are simply a target makes me have trouble breathing. I just want it to stop.
  
  Helping other people understand the full ramifications of what they're talking about actually makes me kind of proud.
  On any hot-button issue, there's a lot of uneducated opinion and emotion on both sides, if I can help guide even one person through to a better understanding of what it all means and what they can do, then I'm not going to cry over it.
  If folks on the left want to do with guns what folks on the right did with abortion, it can be done... All you need is 50 years and a bunch of Supreme Court justices.
  The thing that I find funny is that through ALL this, nobody has asked me "Well, what would YOU do if you're so smart?"
  Well...
  I'd give up trying to ban guns. It's money and energy wasted on an impossibility.
  Examine what CAN be done knowing that banning guns is not an option.
  For example:
  The ATF form to buy a gun already blocks certain kinds of people from buying a gun. For example: If you're indicted or convicted of a felony, you can't own a gun.
  We need an analysis of recent shootings and determine how we could change the laws to have prevented them without banning guns.
  Look at the guy who shot up Michigan State:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting
  He was previously arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, bought more guns and shot up the place.
  Here's a wild idea... maybe make it so gun offenses, misdemeanor or felony, BOTH block you from future gun ownership. Ya think? You've already proven you can't be trusted with a gun.
  Or maybe, just maybe, make it so felony gun charges can't be pled down to a misdemeanor? Felony or nothing.
  Each shooting exposes holes in our existing laws that can and should be fixed, but if we get hung up on "well ban guns, hurhurhur" nothing will ever get done.
  Look at the Maine shooter:
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Lewiston_shootings
  We were SO CLOSE to stopping that guy before he did anything.
  He bought the guns before having auditory hallucinations that landed him in a mental hospital in New York for two weeks.
  While New York has a red flag law, he wasn't a resident of New York. It didn't apply to him.
  Army sent him home, banned him from handling THEIR guns, but Maine doesn't have a red flag law which would have allowed the state to seize weapons.
  So what could we have done? Well... how about getting every state to have a red flag law? Heck, how about a FEDERAL red flag law that could be invoked by, say, the Army, that would apply to all states a soldier might live in?
  Again, ya think?
  These are the common sense laws we can pass right now, and no Amendment or Supreme Court change is required to do it.
  
  Thank you I guess. The dispassionate very long posts make people not want to ask you what you think because it doesn't get our hearts racing I suppose. It also very much feels like you are defending and therefore encouraging the status quo by shooting down, pun intended, everyone's suggestions by quoting established precedent, which we now know means nothing. So it follows that we assume you like things as they stand now whether that is true or not. Why not offer your suggestions much much earlier? No one else is waiting to be asked what they think.
  Why are red flags laws acceptable but licensing and permitting isn't? Why are all guns not classified as "destructive devices". That is their intended purpose. Why isn't a "basic gun" only single round rifles?
  Lewiston is my home town. We don't have 50 years.
  The left needs to spend money. That's what this all boils down to to me.

It says state constitution.

And if the state voted against it, seems they should change the constitution.

Just like they should be doing with a bunch of amendments at the federal level to the US constitution.

Doesn't really matter what our state constitution says if the federal constitution blocks it.
There's actually a lot of ugly language in our state constitution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
I won't quote it here as it's not fit for human consumption. :(

Background checks for gun ownership absolutely is a common sense law. Sadly the state constitution is poorly written in this case, so that needs fixed before a measure like this can be approved.

This law had nothing to do with background checks. Oregon and federal law already require background checks.
This required a special permit to purchase a gun which is not allowed.
- No permit necessary for tanks and nukes then, right?
  
  Nope! You can buy a tank online. Probably will set you back about as much as a new Ferrari for a restored Cold War example, but no permit required.
  
  Munitions included? Who wants a gun with the trigger welded?
  
  No, but you can probably apply to the ATF for a destructive device registration if you make its gun operational.
  I think you also need to do the same for each shell. I know you have to do this for grenade launchers, I'm assuming it's the same for tank shells (especially exploding rounds, not sure about non-exploding).
  
  The 2nd Amendment applies to BEARABLE arms. Tanks, nukes, missiles aren't bearable.
  Caetano - 2016
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
  "The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
  
  Got it. So as long as I can carry it, I should never need a permit. RPGs? Stinger missiles? Or does it have to use bullets?
  And can you give me any logical reason to make that distinction other than "those are the words in the Constitution"?
  
  RPGs, grenades and the like fall under "destructive devices" and as such aren't covered under the 2nd Amendment. They're regulated under the firearms act of 1968.
  https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades
  
  Right. And I'm asking you to give me a reason for the distinction, not proof that the distinction has been made.
  I know that's how the law has been interpreted up to this point. I'm asking you to explain why you believe it to be the correct interpretation
  
  The reason for the distinction between firearms and "destructive devices" is the firearms act of 1968.
  I think the root cause for the confusion is people forget that the agency isn't the ATF, it's the ATFE (I guess the "E" is silent? :)
  Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
  Explosives are their own category, it's right there in the name.
  
  No, the firearms act is the thing that distinguished. It is not itself the justification for distinguishing.
  Right now all you're saying is "because that's the law". I want to know why you think that's how the ought to be
  
  So you agree that armor-piercing ammunition should not be legal, correct? It shoots from a gun, but it explodes. So it is a destructive device.

No court has ever interpreted any right granted by the constitution as absolutely as you believe. All rights have limits.

The Supreme Court has stated that they do believe the 2nd Amendment is restricted, but so far, since 2008, they have struck down all challenges:
Washington D.C. can't ban an entire class of weapon (handguns), or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller, 2008).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald, 2010).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano, 2016).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen, 2022). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
- Jordan, people here don't care whether some bought and paid for judges allowed immoral interpretations of the 2nd amendment. They are arguing that those interpretations are wrong. You can quote legal scripture as much as you like. It doesn't change the fact that those decisions were wrong and continue to be wrong and our society is worse off because of it.
  
  It doesn't matter what a bunch of people on the Internet think about the Court or the 2nd Amendment. Their opinion of it has exactly zero legal weight to it.
  They CAN change it, and I've outlined the ways they can.
  Start an Amendment. Do this by getting 290 votes in the House. Good luck with that!
  Get the Supreme Court to change their interpretation. That means having a Democratic President when the next 2 judges leave the court (likely Thomas - 75 and Alito - 73, two oldest on the court.)

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.

That the second amendment yet everyone ignores the WELL REGLATED part every fucking time.

To me that reads that having back ground checks and etc fits perfectly into the second amendment.

But the Goddamm corrupt courts keep ignoring the entirety of the constitution.

Well Regulated and militia back then both meant something entirely different from what it means today, that's a large part of the problem.
The founders wanted a well armed and equipped population that could be called up for defense at a moments notice.
If you find that confusing, read the line about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
- I love seeing this argument because nothing makes it clearer that your views aren't the product of any kind of critical thought, you've just been handed an excuse to keep doing what you want and you've accepted it with no further questions.
  Because even if we just let you have "well regulated means operating well, not subject to regulations", gun-owners in America still don't meet that definition.
  What good is a militia member who can't demonstrate basic competence and safety with their weapon, isn't required to meet any standard of fitness or miltary training, that potentially has a history of punching their wife?
  And of course, the founding fathers were absolutely aware of this problem.
  Washington spoke of his attempt to recruit from local militias by saying "you may, with almost equal success, attempt to raize the Dead to Life again, as the force of this country".
  In a letter to his nephew he stated “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.”
  So tell us more about how "this is what the founding fathers wanted".
  
  Tell me how Washington was involved in writing the 2nd Amendment... Oh... Riiiight... It was Madison and he describes his reasoning in Federalist 46:
  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
  "a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
  He proposes a standing army no larger than 1/100 of the population or 1/25 able bodied men.
  Compared to the militia which is literally "everybody else".
  More on the history of it here:
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment
  
  Aww, don't be shy, tell us what his motivations were. It was to keep us safe from tyranny right?
  Nope, he was concerned Congress couldn't be relied on to arm the militas they used for slave control. He wasn't even shy about it. Is this something that's still important to you? How many school shootings would you say its worth?
  Of course, he also spoke of how "An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics", so I guess you've only got a small pool of quotes to choose from where he doesn't undermine your case.
  But hey, if "well regulated" means "able to murder unarmed black people", the pro-gun community really has built a well regulated militia, because some far-right fuckstain does that almost every month.
  Edit: Oh look, here's a well regulated militia now.
  
  Oh, it was VERY much in fear of slave rebellions. That's an established fact:
  https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
  "It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."
  Well... I say "established", there's apparently still some debate:
  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf
  "As Bogus concedes, no direct evidence supports the thesis. Instead, historical fact refutes it. The predecessor of the Amendment was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which protected the right of Protestants to have arms. England had no domestic slave population. Beginning in 1776, some states adopted bills of rights that recognized the right to bear arms. Three of them were Northern states that had abolished slavery. When the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787, it was criticized for lacking a bill of rights. Demands for recognition of the right to bear arms emanated from antifederalists, including abolitionists, in the Northern states, while several Southern states ratifed with-out demanding amendments at all.
  New Hampshire, whose bill of rights was read to abolish slavery, was the first state to ratify the Constitution and demand a prohibition on the disarming of citizens. The Virginia ratifying convention followed. While some supported an amendment stating that the states could maintain militias if Congress neglected the same, support for the militia was largely tied to rejection of a standing army, not maintenance of slavery. The right to bear arms was proposed in a declaration of rights that had nothing to do with slavery. New York ratifed next, also proposing recognition of the arms right.
  James Madison introduced what became the Second Amendment in the first federal Congress, and it worked its way through both Houses without any hint of concern for the interests of slavery. Congress rejected the separate structural amendments that included a proposal for more state powers over the militia.
  Rhode Island, the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, demanded both recognition of the right to bear arms and abolition of the slave trade. Vermont was then admitted as a state—it had abolished slavery and recognized the right to bear arms in its 1777 Constitution—and it now ratifed the Second Amendment.
  Contrary to Bogus, no secret conspiracy was afoot to make “the right of the people” to bear arms an instrument of slavery. Instead, the abolitionists, and then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, would use those words to show that “the people” meant just that. African Americans were people and were thus entitled to all of the rights of Americans. The failure at the Founding was not that the rights of citizens were accorded to whites, but that these rights were not accorded to all persons without regard to race. By its very terms, the Second Amendment is a bulwark for the protection of the fundamental rights of all of the people."
- Still needed to be regulated so they saw a need to make sure that they well trained etc. That didn't want just anyone to be armed. Today they don't care if you're crazy as shit and threatened to kill loads of school kids. The right wants no regulation at all.
  I swear we will get this issue fixed soon as one of these nuts start targeting the alt right and GOP.
  
  They did want everone to be armed, that's why it's a right of the people. :)
  
  No, it's a right because it was deemed necessary to the security of a free state. But the individual right to bear arms was meant to be as part of a "well-regulated" militia, not simply as "everyone can have whatever weapon they want."
  Even our current very loose and I would argue inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd does not contemplate the idea that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks or heavy machine guns or SAMs without a ton of oversight.
  And of course none of this touches on the elephant in the room which is the rather obvious fact that if we take originalism seriously, then we have to concede that Madison's conception of the 2nd as being "necessary to the security of a free state," no longer applies since he was specifically concerned with large-scale civil insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion or slave uprisings, and we know very well that militias can play no role in putting down such incidents in a modern context, and to the contrary, generally only serve to exacerbate tensions and escalate violence.
  
  That's a common misreading of the 2nd amendment. You need to get a little further:
  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
  The people, not the militias.
  This is why the Supreme Court ruled in 2008:
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
  "Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
- https://truthout.org/articles/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
  
  Oh, I personally agree, but apparently that's up for debate:
  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf
  "As Bogus concedes, no direct evidence supports the thesis. Instead, historical fact refutes it. The predecessor of the Amendment was the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which protected the right of Protestants to have arms. England had no domestic slave population. Beginning in 1776, some states adopted bills of rights that recognized the right to bear arms. Three of them were Northern states that had abolished slavery. When the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787, it was criticized for lacking a bill of rights. Demands for recognition of the right to bear arms emanated from antifederalists, including abolitionists, in the Northern states, while several Southern states ratifed with-out demanding amendments at all.
  New Hampshire, whose bill of rights was read to abolish slavery, was the first state to ratify the Constitution and demand a prohibition on the disarming of citizens. The Virginia ratifying convention followed. While some supported an amendment stating that the states could maintain militias if Congress neglected the same, support for the militia was largely tied to rejection of a standing army, not maintenance of slavery. The right to bear arms was proposed in a declaration of rights that had nothing to do with slavery. New York ratifed next, also proposing recognition of the arms right.
  James Madison introduced what became the Second Amendment in the first federal Congress, and it worked its way through both Houses without any hint of concern for the interests of slavery. Congress rejected the separate structural amendments that included a proposal for more state powers over the militia.
  Rhode Island, the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, demanded both recognition of the right to bear arms and abolition of the slave trade. Vermont was then admitted as a state—it had abolished slavery and recognized the right to bear arms in its 1777 Constitution—and it now ratifed the Second Amendment.
  Contrary to Bogus, no secret conspiracy was afoot to make “the right of the people” to bear arms an instrument of slavery. Instead, the abolitionists, and then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, would use those words to show that “the people” meant just that. African Americans were people and were thus entitled to all of the rights of Americans. The failure at the Founding was not that the rights of citizens were accorded to whites, but that these rights were not accorded to all persons without regard to race. By its very terms, the Second Amendment is a bulwark for the protection of the fundamental rights of all of the people."
- And that need was eliminated when we formed a standing army
  
  Nope. The standing army is prevented from acting inside the United States. It's the Posse Comitatus Act.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
  
  That’s what the national guard is for.
  We don’t need a militia
  
  The National Guard pre-dates the 2nd Amendment by 155 years, if the founders really felt a militia wasn't necessary, they would not have supported an arms bearing public.
  https://www.nationalguard.mil/about-the-guard/how-we-began/

But guns cost money. That barrier needs to be removed.

You kid, but that's a common argument and was an argument against Measure 114. All it does is make it more expensive to own a gun and that's more of a barrier for minorities.
- that's a common argument and was an argument against Measure 114. All it does is make it more expensive to own a gun
  I wonder that law is for higher education. Or healthcare.

You have describe the problem perfectly. 2A is an extremely blunt law with zero nuance. At least that's how it has been interpreted by the courts. And that's a clearly a huge problem. If the amendment allowed for common sense laws, that would be one thing, but we keep hearing over and over that 2A simply doesn't allow it. Well then 2A is the problem.

And then the problem becomes you need a new Amendment to change it and that starts by getting a 2/3rds vote in the House... 290 votes.
They can't get 290 votes to decide who their own leader should be, or that George Santos should be bounced.
We're actually closer to calling for a full re-write of the Constitution, but when you consider that idea is being driven by the right wing, don't hold out hope their version will contain gun control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The right will demand abortion restriction and gun rights, the left will demand gun restriction and abortion rights, and the whole process dies.
- How hard do you smugly smile typing that, knowing we'll probably never have the votes to amend the constitution ever again for any purpose?
  Knowing that, our only hope is to get a supreme court that will interpret it in a way that might let us save some lives.
  
  Oh, it's not smug. Horrified, never smug.
  I do hope that people will eventually realize that Republicans can't run a government and throw them all out, but I suspect their voters aren't interested in a functional government either.
That's how it has been interpreted lately.

Exactly! But there is a LOT of wiggle room with "anyone who engages in insurrection can't hold public office" and "you have the freedom to not practice anyone else's religion!"

Yet, states are able to take away a person's Right to vote when they go to prison.

Because there is no right to vote in the Constitution, it fell to the states.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/
"The original Constitution doesn’t have much to say about the right to vote. Indeed, nowhere in the text does it explicitly say that citizens have the right to vote in elections. Instead, it merely states that anyone eligible to vote for the largest house of a state’s legislature is also eligible to vote for members of the House of Representatives from that state. As a result, states were left with the power to decide who qualified to vote, leading to considerable variation in the nation’s early years. While most states initially restricted voting to property-owning or tax-paying white men, some states, like New Jersey, allowed free Black men and women of both races to vote provided they met the property or tax requirements. While states soon began expanding voting rights to more citizens, this process unfolded unevenly because it was left up to each state. New Jersey actually revoked the vote from Black men and women in 1807 and North Carolina didn’t remove a property qualification until 1856. Similarly, Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869, long before all women achieved it nationally. This variability continues today, which is why felons can vote in some states but not in others."
So some states let you vote from prison, some don't. Some restore the right on release, some don't.
- The constitution doesn't grant many extremely important rights -- including the right to vote -- because it was written by slave owners who didn't want to grant those rights to slaves and women.
  If they did add those things, they would have had to explicitly state those rights were for white men only.
  I assume if they had, all the pro-gun people saying "we need to arm mass shooters and idiots because its in the constitution" would also be pro-slavery and anti-suffrage too, since they staunchly oppose changing the constitution no matter how backwards and immoral it may be.
  
  Oh, I'm not opposed to changing the Constitution, I just want people to recognize that given our CURRRENT standing in Congress, it's a logistical impossibility.
  290 votes in the House to even START changing it...

ROFL!