4 ms·
Ok -- this is a common statement. I suspect you are arguing in good faith, but ignorant of DC v Heller, and don't understand the prefatory clause debate. > ...
by bjt2n3904 4y ago
Ok -- this is a common statement. I suspect you are arguing in good faith, but ignorant of DC v Heller, and don't understand the prefatory clause debate.
> ... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership. Please read DC v Heller.
Even grammatically, "well regulated" refers to function, not rules. A mechanical watch that keeps time is "well regulated".
Please understand that these points are extremely well settled, and that bringing them up is like bringing up "violent video games".
- javajosh 4y ago>Please understand that these points are extremely well settled You mean like Roe v Wade and Casey? I don't buy this argument. >Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership. That's not clear to me. Not at all. Why mention militias at all? What is a poorly regulated militia? >Please read DC v Heller. Okay.
- javajosh 4y agoDC v Heller was decided in 2008, so "extremely well settled" is false. There was significant dissent leading up to that decision, including Circuit Judge Henderson who wrote: >Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. Also of interest are the amicus briefs. At the time Texas Attorney General but now Governor Greg Abbott, submitted a brief authored by Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz, advising that the case be affirmed. I wonder if they have any second thoughts now, and if they did, if they would admit it?