27 ms·
If you read any scholar pre 1900, you'll find that all of them understood as in no uncertain terms that it is a individual right unconnected to participation in
by agensaequivocum 4y ago
If you read any scholar pre 1900, you'll find that all of them understood as in no uncertain terms that it is a individual right unconnected to participation in a militia. The collective rights understanding is a complete fabrication of the 20th century.
- notch656a 4y agoNo, that's why they said it is the "right of the militia to keep and bear arms." If they wanted it to apply to people, unconnected to the militia they would have said "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." Wait...
- agensaequivocum 4y agoRead the founders, DC v Heller and this Twitter thread https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1523800762706325504 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1523800762706325504.
- agensaequivocum 4y agoAnother point you completely mis-quoted the amendment. It states > 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.
- Cyberdog 4y agoYes, that was the joke. Note that notch656a has posted pro-2A comments elsewhere in this hellthread.
- agensaequivocum 4y agoAh missed that. Thanks.
- acdha 4y agoWhich scholars are you basing this on? I'd recommend checking out Lawrence D. Cress's “Citizens in Arms” and Saul Cornell's “A Well-Regulated Militia”. It's nowhere near as simple as the unrestricted gun activists tend to portray it.
- agensaequivocum 4y agoThis Lawyer has been documenting text in this Twitter thread https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1523800762706325504 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1523800762706325504