Tb0n3 @ Tb0n3 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

778

Joined

2 yr. ago

You've got to be trying to be that obtuse.

Or against a bear. You won't win that fight without a gun.

I don't need to do that because my 7s are distinct from my 1s. That's right. I'm better than you.

That's funny, because it looks to me like the PEOPLE were guaranteed a right.

Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.

Yes.

I wasn't talking about laws in other countries. I was talking about armed rebellions that beat the US. You know the country with planes, bombers, tanks, and whatnot.

Arms, not guns. Also, tell that to the Vietnamese, and Afghanis.

At least some of the founders had the intention of the second amendment allowing the population to overthrow tyrannical rulers.

Read the first sentence again.

It's only unclear if you have an ulterior motive.

Yes, as we all know words never change. Have a gay day.

If they're too dangerous to be trusted in polite society then why are they released? If they just so happen to try it in a polite society that's well armed we won't have to worry any longer.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Important parts in bold.

Shall not be infringed. Pretty god damn simple.

It is far from ambiguous. The first half tells you why the right exists and only part of why. The second half is the right itself, which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You should be able to but there are infringements in place like the originally excessively expensive $200 tax stamp for fully automatic weapons.

You are either disingenuous or an idiot.

The revolutionary war was won with the help of private warships. That would have been well known to the founding fathers who wrote the bill of rights. Do you think that they would suddenly not want the citizens to be able to defend the homeland because guns are scary?

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

If someone is in custody they can have their rights Curtailed. As soon as they are free they should be able to exercise all of their rights once more. The only definition that matters is the right defined which is the right to bear arms and that hasn't changed.

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

Shall not be infringed.