5 ms·
You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion o
by torstenvl 4y ago
You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification.
I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense.
It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago> You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. That is a lot of words for committing an ad hominem. > It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179, not whatever 21st century gun control proponents want it to mean. The Swiss militia was in existence at the time the constitution was written, they knew exactly what they were talking about. And it is exactly what they still have and what we no longer have. Miller is pro-interpretation that the first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't meaningless.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]