6 ms·
Yes. How dare the government of today decide to regulate firearms when the government of 250 years ago already did?! /s
by Hnrobert42 2y ago
Yes. How dare the government of today decide to regulate firearms when the government of 250 years ago already did?!
/s
- 15155 2y agoYou're welcome to amend the Constitution and there's a prescribed process for doing so.
- Hnrobert42 2y agoThe current interpretation of the second amendment is the issue. It has been completely severed from the "A well regulated militia" clause.
- adolph 2y agoWas there some previous interpretation that was utopian?
- giantg2 2y agoEven if that clause was tied to it, how would that affect things given US Title 10 ss 246? I've always wondered if they would enforce those restrictions - disarming disabled people, disarming people over 45, and disarming most women (not in the national guard). Likewise, would that mean I'm then able to own the same weapons individually that the organized militia uses for their duties? It makes for an interesting thought experiment.
- solidsnack9000 2y agoIt's interesting to me that people who make a big deal about that clause don't ever seem to know much about how the militia system actually worked. It was based fundamentally on arms and ammunition that were privately owned, widespread and extremely ubiquitous in society.
- 15155 2y agoEven Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't make this tired, poorly-designed argument: the prefatory clause isn't a limitation, merely a justification. The jurisprudence surrounding the "militia" prefatory clause is long-since settled. Even if you do the mental gymnastics to rework the English language to make this mean what you want it to mean, the militia is composed of all able-bodied men between 17-45 per 10 U.S. Code § 246. At the time of this country's founding, private individuals owned cannonry, ships, and ordnance far beyond small arms. What purpose would letters of marque and reprisal serve without weapons?
- m2f2 2y agoHow about building some government you trust, check on their actions, ousting madmen from politics, and strictly regulate this 2a nonsense once for all? Unless, of course, you really trust Trump less than any random wacko....
- jiggawatts 2y agoRight wing 2A nuts immediately called the guy who tried to “stop a tyrant” by exercising his rights to bear arms against Trump a “Democrat terrorist”. If he hadn’t been fatally shot, they would have demanded he be executed. There is no consistent logic here to debate.
- 15155 2y agoWhere does the right to keep and bear arms become the right to kill? This is a meaningless non-sequitur, not the "logic" you think it is.
- bdangubic 2y agoyou said 2A nuts and logic in the same sentence… :)
- ty6853 2y agoTrump is an 80s dem at best. Right wing 2A nuts generally consider Trump a tyrant exemplified by 'take the guns first and due process later' and banning bump stocks. Trump won the hard right nuts votes merely by being seen as slightly not as bad on core issues as the other main candidate.
- 15155 2y ago> strictly regulate this 2a nonsense once for all Best of luck getting 34/50 state legislatures to agree!