4 ms·

and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple

inigyou 3mo ago
Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.
- redeeman 3mo ago
  thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms. all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Who's going to put them in jail? Their best friends?
    - redeeman 3mo ago
      i didnt say i think its gonna happen, im saying it should happen
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!" At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Yes, judges have the power to say the constitution is just toilet paper. That's why the constitution is currently just toilet paper. Including both the first and second amendments.
myko 3mo ago
The 2A was created for states to maintain their own troops, what is now the modern national guard - hence "well regulated militia" SCOTUS bastardized this original intent. It's shameful.
- giantg2 3mo ago
  What you miss is that US Code defines militia as the explicit militia that you mention, but also the implicit militia. That implicit militia includes others not in the national guard. It's also worth mentioning that most states have similar language to the second amendment, including states whose constitutions were implemented prior to the bill of rights, lending to the credence that this is a right of the people, and not of the state. The 10th amendment was supposed to be for the rights of the states. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
  - myko 2mo ago
    I'm truly not missing this, it is the original intent of #2A. Activist judges misinterpreting it after the fact does not change that, neither does Congress later passing laws to "clarify" away the original intent.

Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.

redeeman 3mo ago
thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms. all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Who's going to put them in jail? Their best friends?
  - redeeman 3mo ago
    i didnt say i think its gonna happen, im saying it should happen
WarmWash 3mo ago
The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!" At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Yes, judges have the power to say the constitution is just toilet paper. That's why the constitution is currently just toilet paper. Including both the first and second amendments.

myko 3mo ago

The 2A was created for states to maintain their own troops, what is now the modern national guard - hence "well regulated militia" SCOTUS bastardized this original intent. It's shameful.

giantg2 3mo ago
What you miss is that US Code defines militia as the explicit militia that you mention, but also the implicit militia. That implicit militia includes others not in the national guard. It's also worth mentioning that most states have similar language to the second amendment, including states whose constitutions were implemented prior to the bill of rights, lending to the credence that this is a right of the people, and not of the state. The 10th amendment was supposed to be for the rights of the states. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
- myko 2mo ago
  I'm truly not missing this, it is the original intent of #2A. Activist judges misinterpreting it after the fact does not change that, neither does Congress later passing laws to "clarify" away the original intent.