Washington post documents unique destructive capabilities of

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, they did not teach this to me in grade school.
i learned it as an adult.
our civic education in public schools is....not so great.

[scgal]

May 23, 2024 22:22:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 23, 2024 18:53:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

The right to bear arms is to protect oneself, loved ones, property. One cannot rely on the state to protect you. 

I don't agree with the negative rights idea, amendment 16 is all about the government. 

Just to remind all of the wording of the 2nd 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.

Self? Loved ones? Property? No mention.

True. That is why the 2010 Heller case is so important. Many may not like it, that is the way it is interpret now. So in all essence the 2a says you do not have to just be in a milita to own a firearm

[scgal]

May 24, 2024 1:52:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just to review:

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare.

it is not necessary to argue this point. only to understand it.

for tenn: here is your link. it is 404 for me, just like the OTHER one you requested. see if it works for you:

www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/#:~:text=All%20of%20the%20rights%20in,to%20provide%20jobs%20and%20healthcare.

I understand the point. I don't agree with it because not all of the BOR says what the govt cannot do. Again Amendment 16 just states that the govt can collect income taxes. 

[Opti]

May 23, 2024 23:37:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 23, 2024 22:22:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Just to remind all of the wording of the 2nd 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.

Self? Loved ones? Property? No mention.

All true.  Does raise one teeny little question though....  How many really need to be reminded?

Too many. They want to see the amendment as granting the right to own guns instead of its only purpose - to stave off having standing armies. That's why the language was included to not restrict the ability of citizens to defend the country when needed. 

[Opti]

May 24, 2024 4:37:34 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 24, 2024 1:52:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just to review:

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare.

it is not necessary to argue this point. only to understand it.

for tenn: here is your link. it is 404 for me, just like the OTHER one you requested. see if it works for you:

www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/#:~:text=All%20of%20the%20rights%20in,to%20provide%20jobs%20and%20healthcare.

I understand the point. I don't agree with it because not all of the BOR says what the govt cannot do. Again Amendment 16 just states that the govt can collect income taxes. 

From Wikipedia -

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists,

[djAdvocate]

May 24, 2024 4:37:34 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 24, 2024 1:52:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just to review:

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare.

it is not necessary to argue this point. only to understand it.

for tenn: here is your link. it is 404 for me, just like the OTHER one you requested. see if it works for you:

www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/#:~:text=All%20of%20the%20rights%20in,to%20provide%20jobs%20and%20healthcare.

I understand the point. I don't agree with it because not all of the BOR says what the govt cannot do. Again Amendment 16 just states that the govt can collect income taxes. 

i didn't say amendments.  i said Bill Of Rights.
that is the first ten amendments.
and yes, they are ALL negative.
this came from anti-federalism.
i am assuming you are an anti-federalist, based on your posts.
i am, as well.  it is WHY we get along, scgal .

edit: so i will ask again: what right was the federal government denied/limited by the second amendment?

[scgal]

May 24, 2024 8:45:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 24, 2024 4:37:34 GMT -5 scgal said:

I understand the point. I don't agree with it because not all of the BOR says what the govt cannot do. Again Amendment 16 just states that the govt can collect income taxes. 

i didn't say amendments.  i said Bill Of Rights.
that is the first ten amendments.
and yes, they are ALL negative.
this came from anti-federalism.
i am assuming you are an anti-federalist, based on your posts.
i am, as well.  it is WHY we get along, scgal .

edit: so i will ask again: what right was the federal government denied/limited by the second amendment?

To your question no rights were denied by the second amendment

[djAdvocate]

May 29, 2024 8:23:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 24, 2024 8:45:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i didn't say amendments.  i said Bill Of Rights.
that is the first ten amendments.
and yes, they are ALL negative.
this came from anti-federalism.
i am assuming you are an anti-federalist, based on your posts.
i am, as well.  it is WHY we get along, scgal .

edit: so i will ask again: what right was the federal government denied/limited by the second amendment?

To your question no rights were denied by the second amendment

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

[scgal]

May 29, 2024 13:23:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 29, 2024 8:23:48 GMT -5 scgal said:

To your question no rights were denied by the second amendment

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

Contrary to what many on here believe. I believe and alot of people believe the same, more available weapons the safer we are. The govt should be restricted more but it is not. The govt proves how corrupt they prove this everyday. They give away money like crazy then tax the hell out of the people. The system is so bad that if we can elect someone who would just say no just a little it would be better. I know you think we overspend on the military I think we should spend more. The main purpose of the govt is to protect the USA. If that means backing everyone else up and saying if you want our help pay for it but we are not part of your bullshit. No one world us. 

[Opti]

May 30, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 29, 2024 13:23:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

Contrary to what many on here believe. I believe and alot of people believe the same, more available weapons the safer we are. The govt should be restricted more but it is not. The govt proves how corrupt they prove this everyday. They give away money like crazy then tax the hell out of the people. The system is so bad that if we can elect someone who would just say no just a little it would be better. I know you think we overspend on the military I think we should spend more. The main purpose of the govt is to protect the USA. If that means backing everyone else up and saying if you want our help pay for it but we are not part of your bullshit. No one world us. 

Stats show that the more guns in the US, the more deaths. If more guns really made one safer, shouldn't drug running criminals lead very long lives? 

[pulmonarymd]

May 30, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 29, 2024 13:23:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

Contrary to what many on here believe. I believe and alot of people believe the same, more available weapons the safer we are. The govt should be restricted more but it is not. The govt proves how corrupt they prove this everyday. They give away money like crazy then tax the hell out of the people. The system is so bad that if we can elect someone who would just say no just a little it would be better. I know you think we overspend on the military I think we should spend more. The main purpose of the govt is to protect the USA. If that means backing everyone else up and saying if you want our help pay for it but we are not part of your bullshit. No one world us. 

Typical conservative, double down on your beliefs despite any data to the contrary. It has been shown repeatedly that more guns=more gun deaths, as well as more crime. The safest nations have stricter gun laws. If you don’t believe that, just look at gun deaths after Australia changed their gun laws. But you will just blather more nonsense about how that is wrong, you do not believe it, or it is a liberal conspiracy

[tallguy]

May 30, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 29, 2024 13:23:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

Contrary to what many on here believe. I believe and alot of people believe the same, more available weapons the safer we are. The govt should be restricted more but it is not. The govt proves how corrupt they prove this everyday. They give away money like crazy then tax the hell out of the people. The system is so bad that if we can elect someone who would just say no just a little it would be better. I know you think we overspend on the military I think we should spend more. The main purpose of the govt is to protect the USA. If that means backing everyone else up and saying if you want our help pay for it but we are not part of your bullshit. No one world us. 

1.  You acknowledge that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to preclude the need for a standing army.
2.  You trumpet the Second Amendment as one of the most important "rights" we have.
3.  You think we should spend even more on the military than we do now.

How are those three statements logically consistent?

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 29, 2024 13:23:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not in the opinion of the guy that wrote it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

Jefferson was trying to impair the ability of the federal government to have a standing army during peacetime when he drafted 2a.  everything he wrote during his life, including that amendment, supports that position.  

would you like some more supporting statements?

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

 

EXACTLY!  and this is why i don't think that the 2010 ruling is against 2a.
i think that 110 years of standing armies is.

[scgal]

May 30, 2024 5:15:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 30, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5 scgal said:

Ok. Makes sense. He was refering to the danger of a standing army which supports my position every man should have the right to bear arms. 

Contrary to what many on here believe. I believe and alot of people believe the same, more available weapons the safer we are. The govt should be restricted more but it is not. The govt proves how corrupt they prove this everyday. They give away money like crazy then tax the hell out of the people. The system is so bad that if we can elect someone who would just say no just a little it would be better. I know you think we overspend on the military I think we should spend more. The main purpose of the govt is to protect the USA. If that means backing everyone else up and saying if you want our help pay for it but we are not part of your bullshit. No one world us. 

Stats show that the more guns in the US, the more deaths. If more guns really made one safer, shouldn't drug running criminals lead very long lives? 

Probably, they will go up for a short amount of time. Imagine a person goes in to rob a convenience store there he is shot by 5 or 6 people. A guy is beating his wife in a parking lot some goes to help the guy goes after them he gets shot. No money tied up in court cases no money tied up in jail time, just done those kind of killings I want to see.

[tbop77]

Jun 3, 2024 8:46:41 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 30, 2024 5:15:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Stats show that the more guns in the US, the more deaths. If more guns really made one safer, shouldn't drug running criminals lead very long lives? 

Probably, they will go up for a short amount of time. Imagine a person goes in to rob a convenience store there he is shot by 5 or 6 people. A guy is beating his wife in a parking lot some goes to help the guy goes after them he gets shot. No money tied up in court cases no money tied up in jail time, just done those kind of killings I want to see.

And if a few innocent people get killed during the shoot out, just collateral damage?   

[Opti]

Jun 3, 2024 8:46:41 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 30, 2024 5:15:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Stats show that the more guns in the US, the more deaths. If more guns really made one safer, shouldn't drug running criminals lead very long lives? 

Probably, they will go up for a short amount of time. Imagine a person goes in to rob a convenience store there he is shot by 5 or 6 people. A guy is beating his wife in a parking lot some goes to help the guy goes after them he gets shot. No money tied up in court cases no money tied up in jail time, just done those kind of killings I want to see.

Lets imagine RL. A guy goes to rob a convenience store and kills the owner before he has a chance to reach his gun. Bystanders are shot who are in the way or try to assist the owner who was shot. The guy beating his wife is likely to carry a gun and shoot anyone who tries to assist the wife. You live in fairy tale land if you feel the "good" shooters in your scenarios do not go to court. So instead of one person and one court case in the convenience store case, you possibly have 6 to 7 separate cases now. Same with the wife beater and whoever shot him. Two court cases, probably with both people involved in each court case. So more than double the money should the perp live. If he's killed, only jail time averted, court case(s) will just be different.

This isn't the wild west, there is no free pass for shooting people just because you think they are doing bad things. This is how some spouses who have lost their way justify killing their spouse and sometimes their children. What you wrote is fantasy, but unlikely given human behavior. We had an experiment with many guns back in the wild west years ago. What happened was more dead people and shorter lifespans. Not a lessening of crime.

[djAdvocate]

not a fan of extrajudicial killings.

in fact, i am not a fan of extrajudicial ANYTHING.

[scgal]

Jun 4, 2024 6:36:17 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 3, 2024 8:46:41 GMT -5 scgal said:

Probably, they will go up for a short amount of time. Imagine a person goes in to rob a convenience store there he is shot by 5 or 6 people. A guy is beating his wife in a parking lot some goes to help the guy goes after them he gets shot. No money tied up in court cases no money tied up in jail time, just done those kind of killings I want to see.

Lets imagine RL. A guy goes to rob a convenience store and kills the owner before he has a chance to reach his gun. Bystanders are shot who are in the way or try to assist the owner who was shot. The guy beating his wife is likely to carry a gun and shoot anyone who tries to assist the wife. You live in fairy tale land if you feel the "good" shooters in your scenarios do not go to court. So instead of one person and one court case in the convenience store case, you possibly have 6 to 7 separate cases now. Same with the wife beater and whoever shot him. Two court cases, probably with both people involved in each court case. So more than double the money should the perp live. If he's killed, only jail time averted, court case(s) will just be different.

This isn't the wild west, there is no free pass for shooting people just because you think they are doing bad things. This is how some spouses who have lost their way justify killing their spouse and sometimes their children. What you wrote is fantasy, but unlikely given human behavior. We had an experiment with many guns back in the wild west years ago. What happened was more dead people and shorter lifespans. Not a lessening of crime.

No I'm not I actually been in these situations before. I have been assaulted during a store robbery (before I started carrying a weapon). I help battered women all the time. So in those cases you said it would def be different. If everyone in the store is carrying then more than likely the robber would be dead. Same with assisting a battered woman you don't assist you pull your weapon first then if he comes at you he is dead. In my state you don't need to be threatened with a weapon just feel you or anyone around you life is being threatened to justify a shooting. 

[Opti]

Given the prevalence of credit and debit cards I think robbing a convenience store or most non gas stations for cash is a lot less common than it used to be. Identity theft, check washing, scamming the elderly etc. are significantly up and are not crimes that can be stopped generally by a gun owner. Even with your attacked battered woman scenario, it only works is if he is more concerned about getting shot than taking vengeance on the woman in his reach. If he has a knife or a gun, he could probably kill her faster than you could shoot him. 

In my state you don't need to be threatened with a weapon just feel you or anyone around you life is being threatened to justify a shooting.

And if a jury of your peers sees it differently, it could impact your life with some jail time.  

[scgal]

Jun 4, 2024 10:17:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Given the prevalence of credit and debit cards I think robbing a convenience store or most non gas stations for cash is a lot less common than it used to be. Identity theft, check washing, scamming the elderly etc. are significantly up and are not crimes that can be stopped generally by a gun owner. Even with your attacked battered woman scenario, it only works is if he is more concerned about getting shot than taking vengeance on the woman in his reach. If he has a knife or a gun, he could probably kill her faster than you could shoot him. 

In my state you don't need to be threatened with a weapon just feel you or anyone around you life is being threatened to justify a shooting.

And if a jury of your peers sees it differently, it could impact your life with some jail time.  

I don't think you understand you won't even be arrested. Now a civil case from the family you can bet on that, but no jail time. 

[billisonboard]

Jun 16, 2024 9:29:35 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 4, 2024 10:17:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Given the prevalence of credit and debit cards I think robbing a convenience store or most non gas stations for cash is a lot less common than it used to be. Identity theft, check washing, scamming the elderly etc. are significantly up and are not crimes that can be stopped generally by a gun owner. Even with your attacked battered woman scenario, it only works is if he is more concerned about getting shot than taking vengeance on the woman in his reach. If he has a knife or a gun, he could probably kill her faster than you could shoot him. 



And if a jury of your peers sees it differently, it could impact your life with some jail time.  

I don't think you understand you won't even be arrested. Now a civil case from the family you can bet on that, but no jail time. 

No jail time is good. Keep working so you can pay the family for the pain and suffering caused them.

[scgal]

Jun 16, 2024 9:45:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 16, 2024 9:29:35 GMT -5 scgal said:

I don't think you understand you won't even be arrested. Now a civil case from the family you can bet on that, but no jail time. 

No jail time is good. Keep working so you can pay the family for the pain and suffering caused them.

That is a chance I would take 100% of the time to protect myself or loved ones. I can't find any data on it but I would think that a justifiable shooting in a very red state wouldn't get too far on a civil case either. They can boo hoo all they want the world is better off with another pos dead

[billisonboard]

Jun 17, 2024 10:04:40 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 16, 2024 9:45:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

No jail time is good. Keep working so you can pay the family for the pain and suffering caused them.

That is a chance I would take 100% of the time to protect myself or loved ones. I can't find any data on it but I would think that a justifiable shooting in a very red state wouldn't get too far on a civil case either. They can boo hoo all they want the world is better off with another pos dead

I think there is a lot of grey between nonprosecutable and "justifiable".

[thyme4change]

Jun 17, 2024 10:04:40 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 16, 2024 9:45:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

No jail time is good. Keep working so you can pay the family for the pain and suffering caused them.

That is a chance I would take 100% of the time to protect myself or loved ones. I can't find any data on it but I would think that a justifiable shooting in a very red state wouldn't get too far on a civil case either. They can boo hoo all they want the world is better off with another pos dead

Or the guy walking down the street that looked at you sideways - he should also be dead.

[scgal]

Jun 17, 2024 10:12:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 17, 2024 10:04:40 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is a chance I would take 100% of the time to protect myself or loved ones. I can't find any data on it but I would think that a justifiable shooting in a very red state wouldn't get too far on a civil case either. They can boo hoo all they want the world is better off with another pos dead

I think there is a lot of grey between nonprosecutable and "justifiable".

Agreed that is why the first thing you tell an officer when they arrive is " I felt that my life was in danger" you don't have to prove it. The investigation will determine the rest. 

[scgal]

Jun 17, 2024 13:00:58 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jun 17, 2024 10:04:40 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is a chance I would take 100% of the time to protect myself or loved ones. I can't find any data on it but I would think that a justifiable shooting in a very red state wouldn't get too far on a civil case either. They can boo hoo all they want the world is better off with another pos dead

Or the guy walking down the street that looked at you sideways - he should also be dead.

You really believe that?

[billisonboard]

Jun 17, 2024 16:26:53 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 17, 2024 10:12:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think there is a lot of grey between nonprosecutable and "justifiable".

Agreed that is why the first thing you tell an officer when they arrive is " I felt that my life was in danger" you don't have to prove it. The investigation will determine the rest. 

Important to rehearse that line so one has it down.

[Tennesseer]

No surprise on Thomas' dissent.  Ginnie again.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars firearm possession by people under domestic-violence restraining orders in a ruling that tempers the court’s expansion of constitutional gun rights.

Voting 8-1, the justices said the Constitution’s Second Amendment isn’t so broad that it protects the gun rights of those found to be dangerous. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

[billisonboard]

Jun 21, 2024 9:35:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

No surprise on Thomas' dissent.  Ginnie again.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars firearm possession by people under domestic-violence restraining orders in a ruling that tempers the court’s expansion of constitutional gun rights.

Voting 8-1, the justices said the Constitution’s Second Amendment isn’t so broad that it protects the gun rights of those found to be dangerous. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

re: Thomas

“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence," Thomas wrote. link

How about this one:

In 1824, Mississippi’s Supreme Court allowed a husband to administer “moderate chastisement in case of emergencies”. link

Wait, it allowed domestic violence. History should inform, not dictate.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 21, 2024 9:58:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 21, 2024 9:35:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

No surprise on Thomas' dissent.  Ginnie again.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars firearm possession by people under domestic-violence restraining orders in a ruling that tempers the court’s expansion of constitutional gun rights.

Voting 8-1, the justices said the Constitution’s Second Amendment isn’t so broad that it protects the gun rights of those found to be dangerous. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Supreme Court Upholds US Gun Ban in Domestic Violence Cases

re: Thomas

“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence," Thomas wrote. link

How about this one:

In 1824, Mississippi’s Supreme Court allowed a husband to administer “moderate chastisement in case of emergencies”. link

Wait, it allowed domestic violence. History should inform, not dictate.

More info about the Supreme Court case here:

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims