Here's a workable experiment for 'Red Flag' Laws

Much better to simply declare the text means something completely different to what it says. 'Militia' suddenly means 'individual'; 'security of a free state' means 'self-defense against the state'. No doubt 'to bear' means 'to weasel', since that's what you're doing.

Who makes up a militia? Who makes up a free state?

No, sorry, that won't fly. What is at stake is determining whether the text speaks about collectives or individuals. That collectives consist of individuals doesn't answer that question; all collectives do. You are trying to prove that the text specifically does not mean militias and states, but instead means individuals. You know, as in the opposite of the words that it actually uses.

I'm sorry, is the argument that the founders were such eloquent wordsmiths that they didn't just say "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be oppressed" because it made them look smart?

Apparently in @Lanzman's mind, they wanted to deceive their readers, writing about defending the state when they in fact meant opposing it. It's always a good idea when writing a law to compose it in code, of course; otherwise anyone could interpret it.

Anyone with a sixth grade education can "interpret" it. There's no mystical jargon in the 2nd, nor in any other part of the Constitution. It's written in clear, easily understood english appropriate to the late 18th century. That the writers of the document didn't find it necessary to include a glossary of terms at the end seems to baffle you, but most of us can read and comprehend what it says perfectly well.

There is a reality that the writers of the second amendment also did not have modern firearms in mind. Guns of their day were inaccurate, took a long time to reload, and more killing was probably done with the knife on the end than the bullets. A shooter using a handheld gun in those days would easily be overrun by a mob of unarmed people if he went crazy. If the town was having a crowded festival and a person shot into the crowd he could be easily physically confronted before getting a third shot off. The third bullet from a semi auto can be in the air while the first is reaching it's target.

So to say those people felt that modern high capacity, high ROF, high accuracy, and highly fatal weapons of today were something they had thought of when they drafted that amendment is false. The reality is that they had a method to change and add laws to the constitution to adapt to the future, which means that they recognized a time would come when things would have to be changed. Really no amendment cannot be changed. It is hard to change amendments, but not impossible.

The writers of the first amendment did not have television, radio, twitter, Facebook, or Instagram in mind. Wanna limit free speech with that argument?

No, because written or verbal communication is still only as effective as the words employed or the minds receiving it.

A flintlock is not equal to a Tomahawk missile. I can SAY that, but you will still keep bleating the same bullshit.

On the contrary, it is perfectly clear. The problem is not with the text but with your patently false interpretation that literally posits the opposite of the words on the page.

Actually, this might be another area where they could not have envisioned things like fake news and the insane effect propaganda and lies had on the general populace. They also did not envision things like yelling fire in huge auditoriums. Due to this they might have seen a reason to limit the definitions of press and certain speech. Back then one person could not reach so many with their falsehoods, and better educated people might have filtered or altered words. One would not expect the village idiot to have the ear of the president or congress back in those days.

So yes that does go right along with what I am saying.

Fake news was invented the day before journalism. The only change is that some are now open about it, kudos to NYT for acknowledging it's not news but a packaged narrative, to be consumed by fans.

12 millennia before Tuttle's posting algorithm.

BASIC.

But people have been arguing in court about how to interpret the constitution for centuries.

Where is the point where it is no longer fit for purpose as written? Why is it specifically the US which requires that document to guarantee rights which people enjoy elsewhere?

Take your free speech example, how many times have courts ruled in favour of exceptions? How did it fare during the McCarthy era? It was liberals who fought to preserve it - without guns.

Because even at its height, McCarthyism didn't involve midnight raids, hobnailed boots, and people disappearing into gulags. The level of threat was not sufficient for armed insurrection to meet it. The matter was ultimately resolved the correct way, thru congressional administrative actions and legal proceedings. You know, the way our system should ideally work.

The Constitution will reach the point where it is no longer fit for service when it no longer protects those rights it was designed to protect, and/or the government it created is no longer recognizable as being based in the Constitution. Then we can either (A) call a constitutional convention and fix it, or (B) have us a nice little civil war that will make Round 1 seem like a boy scout jamboree.

As to why the US requires the document, show me another republic that's lasted as long as ours that doesn't have a written constitution. Despite some severe challenges, the Union endures in more or less the same form as originally envisioned. And I wouldn't count too heavily on "rights" that aren't enumerated and specifically protected in a foundational document somewhere. You build your castle on sand, it's not gonna stand up very long.

the FCC sure does...

and why have we been ignoring the "A well regulated" part of that free state's militia anyways?

you guys always wanna skip past that and get straight to the shooting shit bits.

I'm going to reiterate what I've said previously on red flag laws. I would support them if #1 The police could not seek red flag warrants. Can't get a guy on whatever you suspect him of doing? He's a danger to his family, we need a comprehensive warrant to remove any firearms from his home, place of work, and vehicle. OH LOOK, something illegal, you're under arrest. #2 Due process in these cases must be swift. They must come with a 72 hour evaluation followed by an emergency hearing in front of a judge. If the evaluation shows a no threat, the person walks out that day with their firearms, the false complaintant is arrested. A red flag warrant the must be treated with the most serious of weight. If the evaluation shows a threat, a mandatory therapy plan must be drawn up, upon completion of this plan, the firearms are returned. Restoration must always be the goal. Throw in some legalese making this iron clad, the punushments for false accusations severe, and yes, I would support this.

Said it before, I'll say it again: If the Second said "the right to bear kumquats," you clowns would be running around with sacks of 'em.

Either that, or you're a bunch of scaredycats waiting for The Bad Guys to jump out of the bushes and kill you.

Apparently in your minds that makes you Bigger and Stronger and More Powerful than those of us who have live longer than most of you without ever picking up a gun (well, okay, stage prop loaded with blanks, but other than that...).

Chicken Shits R U.

You're right, it never got that far (although people were imprisoned in violation of their 1A rights so how far is too far?).

Nonetheless it didn't get there because of the liberals using non violent means and let's not forget it was the conservative demographic (ie those who supported and still support permissive gun laws) who were supporting those violations of rights, much as it is conservatives who are now supporting concentration camps, or just as bad looking the other way and pretending not to see.

This theme is a recurring one, talking about resisting tyranny in the hypothetical but actually being the ones supporting it where it actually happens.

And yet the current ICE abuse does rise pretty precisely to that description. So what's up with the resistance?

so for you folks absolutely appalled at the conditions at the border - wave a wand! How would you magically solve the problem of being overwhelmed with potential immigrants/asylum seekers?
Granted many are brown - which makes the situation much worse by a factor of ten at least - but we can't help it that Canadians aren't trying to bum rush our northern border.
So how would you fix this train as it's rolling down the tracks right now, today. No bitching about how US policies are causing this mess (because that's your default position so that doesn't count) but what would you do to get the proper facilities and shorten wait times to get these people sorted out and on their way either to the land of milk & honey, or back from where they came?

Would you shit out air conditioned dormitories and more lawyers? Share your plans with the world please! Oh, and show your work too.

Fun fact, more illegals enter the US through the Canadian border than the Mexican one.

Yet strangely there's no camps and no one's talking about a wall.

Even by the deliberately inflated numbers of the Trump government, border crossings are at no greater level than about two thirds of what they were under Bush-2.

But even so:

Stop metering. Reopen established ports of entry, rather than force legal crossings to become "illegal". Do not separate kids from access to their parents. Do not forbid Red Cross workers, doctors, as well as lawyers access to camps. Do not turn back private support and volunteers. Fire officers on record as gloating that they deliberately torment children and women.

It is extremely difficult to believe that the US cannot provide basic living conditions for far less immigrants proportionally than Germany does as a matter of course. But if that is the case, then allowing them to enter the country is clearly better than killing children. Note that that is what you did with far more immigrants per year -- more than double -- up to no more than a decade ago. According to Trump, this means that the United States must have stopped existing in response. Did that happen in the 2000s?

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to use it in an offline discussion I'm having.

A point that seems to go out of the window when people talk about the immigration "crisis"

Someone posted one in here a while back, I'll have to trawl through to find it, although I must confess to having been doubtful.

Google isn't all that helpful at a quick glance because of the volume of clearly partisan sites which come up.

Bear with me.

Ok, I'm going to have to backtrack, the Quebec/New York border has reported illegals in the order of500 per day going in the opposite direction which wwas what I was thinking of.

yes they enter the US for shopping and other temporary visits. How many enter fully intent on staying in the US seeking a better life, and never returning to Canada?