3 ms·

You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia. The government looking through your

You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia. The government looking through your personal information requires due process, otherwise its a violation of the 4th amendment.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Militia is a big part of the 2nd amendment. Why is that mentioned at all?
- krapp 4y ago
  Unfortunately the current definition of "well regulated militia" per the Supreme Court doesn't require either regulation (in the sense of laws, or even discipline and training) or a militia.
  - atchoo 4y ago
    If that's allowed then let's just go the whole hog and consider "keep and bear arms" as null and void meaningless words too. Who knew the solution was so easy.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Unfortunately, that phrase is apparently immutable.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  It's an explantory/reasoning clause. I saw this somewhere and think it's a good example: If there were an amendment that said "A well educated electorate being necessary to the functioning of the democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you'd have a very hard time convincing me (or I think most people) that said amendment limits the right to keep and read books only to those that are either well educated already, or by only the electorate (and not say, children or felons). Likewise, if the first amendment said something along the lines of "A personal connection with his creator being necessary for a upstanding and moral citizen, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think you'd also have a hard time arguing that athiests and agnostics don't have a right to free expression or to not have a religion forced upon them by the government.
jjeaff 4y ago
You don't need a warrant to view public social media content.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Militia is a big part of the 2nd amendment. Why is that mentioned at all?

krapp 4y ago
Unfortunately the current definition of "well regulated militia" per the Supreme Court doesn't require either regulation (in the sense of laws, or even discipline and training) or a militia.
- atchoo 4y ago
  If that's allowed then let's just go the whole hog and consider "keep and bear arms" as null and void meaningless words too. Who knew the solution was so easy.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Unfortunately, that phrase is apparently immutable.
tpmoney 4y ago
It's an explantory/reasoning clause. I saw this somewhere and think it's a good example: If there were an amendment that said "A well educated electorate being necessary to the functioning of the democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you'd have a very hard time convincing me (or I think most people) that said amendment limits the right to keep and read books only to those that are either well educated already, or by only the electorate (and not say, children or felons). Likewise, if the first amendment said something along the lines of "A personal connection with his creator being necessary for a upstanding and moral citizen, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think you'd also have a hard time arguing that athiests and agnostics don't have a right to free expression or to not have a religion forced upon them by the government.

jjeaff 4y ago

You don't need a warrant to view public social media content.