5 ms·

I have a dream... that one day we will have a DEA which only regulates purity and accuracy of dose for drugs, and an ATF which only regulates quality and accura

I have a dream... that one day we will have a DEA which only regulates purity and accuracy of dose for drugs, and an ATF which only regulates quality and accuracy for firearms. These laws do little to protect the public and they mire enthusiasts with steep and discouraging legal (and thus personal physical) risks. This sort of thinking about the role of government has to stop; it is human civilization's chief sickness.

anon7000 2y ago
“Chief sickness” is pretty strong when there are dozens of other human problems that are considerably worse.
cyanydeez 2y ago
I have a well regulated militia dream. give up guys.
- sneak 2y ago
  The 2A is interpreted both popularly and legally as an individual right: it is the right of the people, not the right of the militia. And, as I’m sure you know, the term “regulated” as written in 2A does not mean the same thing as “regulated” in terms of “government regulation”. In context, it means approximately “well-functioning” or “reliable”.
  - dr_dshiv 2y ago
    “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” An individual right to participate in a well regulated militia.
    - Pyxl101 2y ago
      In historical context, the “militia” was everyone, every able bodied person who could participate in common defense. It wasn’t a specific organization like we’d think of today Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected. SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell... The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... Notably: > Held: > 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. > (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
      - dmoy 2y ago
        > In historical context In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        Are we really to believe that slave states ratified the 2nd amendment with the belief that they were giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms? Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.
      - herewulf 2y ago
        Worth noting that this was a 5 vs. 4 ruling and thus reeks of politics.
        15155 2y ago
        Worth noting that Caetano was unanimous - including some of the most staunchly left-leaning Justices in the history of the Court.
    - oldpersonintx 2y ago
      [dead]
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
      The militia is every able-bodied person, both as a matter of history and as literally defined in US law for centuries. Furthermore, this militia is expressly recognized as "unorganized" in law i.e. separate from organized militias created by the government. In the US, the militia is explicitly independent of the government. Even if one were to accept your narrow reading, which no court has, I don't see how it would materially change anything given that any random group of blokes without any government involvement is a militia as a matter of law.
      - dr_dshiv 2y ago
        It is constitutionally ok to require that certain guns can only be kept at well-regulated gun clubs. Those clubs, or militias, could own tanks, drones, explosives. Ie, all those things that aren’t allowed today in the hands of private owners.
        15155 2y ago
        > tanks, drones, explosives. These are all allowed today in the hands of private owners. What are you even talking about?
bongodongobob 2y ago
[flagged]
- potato3732842 2y ago
  That's a non-starter. These militia types don't see the state headed in a good direction so of course they're not gonna sign up to be part of one of the violence arms of the state (military, LEO, etc). If they did believe in the state they'd already have signed up.
- rickandmortyy 2y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- akimbostrawman 2y ago
  Once again this tiresome throwaway line https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c...
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    Best reply in the whole storm I kicked up.
bigfudge 2y ago
But drugs and firearms have very different risk profiles for other people. Perhaps it bears repeating: US lax gun laws and culture which glorifies violence leads to an order of magnitude more violent deaths than comparable countries in Europe.

anon7000 2y ago

“Chief sickness” is pretty strong when there are dozens of other human problems that are considerably worse.

cyanydeez 2y ago

I have a well regulated militia dream. give up guys.

sneak 2y ago
The 2A is interpreted both popularly and legally as an individual right: it is the right of the people, not the right of the militia. And, as I’m sure you know, the term “regulated” as written in 2A does not mean the same thing as “regulated” in terms of “government regulation”. In context, it means approximately “well-functioning” or “reliable”.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  “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” An individual right to participate in a well regulated militia.
  - Pyxl101 2y ago
    In historical context, the “militia” was everyone, every able bodied person who could participate in common defense. It wasn’t a specific organization like we’d think of today Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected. SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell... The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... Notably: > Held: > 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. > (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
    - dmoy 2y ago
      > In historical context In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Are we really to believe that slave states ratified the 2nd amendment with the belief that they were giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms? Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.
    - herewulf 2y ago
      Worth noting that this was a 5 vs. 4 ruling and thus reeks of politics.
      - 15155 2y ago
        Worth noting that Caetano was unanimous - including some of the most staunchly left-leaning Justices in the history of the Court.
  - oldpersonintx 2y ago
    [dead]
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    The militia is every able-bodied person, both as a matter of history and as literally defined in US law for centuries. Furthermore, this militia is expressly recognized as "unorganized" in law i.e. separate from organized militias created by the government. In the US, the militia is explicitly independent of the government. Even if one were to accept your narrow reading, which no court has, I don't see how it would materially change anything given that any random group of blokes without any government involvement is a militia as a matter of law.
    - dr_dshiv 2y ago
      It is constitutionally ok to require that certain guns can only be kept at well-regulated gun clubs. Those clubs, or militias, could own tanks, drones, explosives. Ie, all those things that aren’t allowed today in the hands of private owners.
      - 15155 2y ago
        > tanks, drones, explosives. These are all allowed today in the hands of private owners. What are you even talking about?

bongodongobob 2y ago

[flagged]

potato3732842 2y ago
That's a non-starter. These militia types don't see the state headed in a good direction so of course they're not gonna sign up to be part of one of the violence arms of the state (military, LEO, etc). If they did believe in the state they'd already have signed up.
rickandmortyy 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
akimbostrawman 2y ago
Once again this tiresome throwaway line https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/779/561/67c...
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  Best reply in the whole storm I kicked up.

bigfudge 2y ago

But drugs and firearms have very different risk profiles for other people. Perhaps it bears repeating: US lax gun laws and culture which glorifies violence leads to an order of magnitude more violent deaths than comparable countries in Europe.