Thanlarkis
2195
81
30
I don't take the shits I just disturb them - Wade Wilson
Sep 20, 2022 2:00 AM
Thanlarkis
2195
81
30
I don't take the shits I just disturb them - Wade Wilson
friendsofsandwiches
I've seen some Militias. They ain't very well regulated to me. Several of them had members in the jan 6th riot
StarSumiaki
I don't really care about the militia part. I just don't think gun control violates 2A so long as it's not total ban, which it won't be. 1/2
StarSumiaki
The insistence that anything less than unfettered freedom to own any and every kind of firearm, is infringement of 2A is just sheer lunacy.
mycatwontletmeclosemybedroomdoor
80 years of jurisprudence in the highest court in the land can't wholly settle the issue, but you think you have by stubbornly repeating...
mycatwontletmeclosemybedroomdoor
WeLl ReGuLaTed! Well done...slow claps sarcastically.
Affablesea9917
District of Columbia v. Heller
BosunMark
The writers couldn't imagine a weapon that could fire more than 2 -3 times in a minute either...
NachoPete
The Ferguson Rifle could easily fire 6 rounds per minute & was used in the war.
BosunMark
ok.. pardon my lack of weapons history.. my point is they didn't think every nut job would be running about with today's weapons..
NachoPete
Privately owned warships with cannons also existed. Artillery units were mostly contactors in the early years.
vonKaiser
Kalthoff repeating rifle was adopted into service for the army of Denmark in 1657, designed in 1630.
WhoToldYouLifeWasFair
They like to conveniently leave out that "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, don't thay?
Armyguy8382
No. Their Supreme Court loading allows them to make that a completely separate thought from 'shall not be infringed'.
WellThatsOriginal
No
ShimmerinStrider
If you are a citizen of the US you are potentially a militia member. It's built right into the oath of citizenship.
Thanlarkis
Potential but not well regulated. Read it again
ShimmerinStrider
You're right. Merry Christmas
Netskimmer
No one leaves it out, you just don't understand what it means. Back then "well regulated" equaled "properly functioning."
Cargobiker530
No. It meant regulated like it means today. "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States"
Thanlarkis
Hey they do the same with the Bible.
BadenBadenLillies
The smoothest of smooth brain takes.
Thanlarkis
You mean the law? As written?
d0o0o0d
Yup > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Thanlarkis
Still not well regulated
d0o0o0d
That is the law that legally defines militia membership. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
Netskimmer
We need access to firearms so that we can create a properly functioning militia (well regulated) If needed. ->
Netskimmer
You don't want to start a militia THEN try to find guns.
FartsSmellBad
There is no established test for a well regulated militia, ergo anyone can be one
Cargobiker530
Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States by Friedrich Wilhelm Steuben. They had a BOOK!!
Espio217
If there’s no test then no one can pass. Your logic is flawed.
FartsSmellBad
That's not how law works. If there is no test, then there is no failure. If there is no law against something, you can do it.
K1d1caru5
The military is a well regulated militia. And that is your test. National guard or other. Join if you want guns.
Thanlarkis
Now, what would then law be then? No well regulated militia... (Insert answer here)
Sechran
If the US Government really went full tyrant, do you *really* think your gravy seal BS could stop a hellfire missile armed drone? Get real.
WhoToldYouLifeWasFair
"Gravy Seal"?
NachoPete
Tell me more about how little you understand about asymmetrical warfare.
macthelost
If that did happen, the military would most likely say out of it. It would end up being cops vs citizens. Remember all mil people are people
macthelost
Not robots. If they did get involved it would probably be split maybe 20/80 with the 80% being against the tyrannical government. It’s >
macthelost
Actually in the oath of service that you have to fight a tyrannical government and you can’t follow unlawful orders. And asking a military >
macthelost
Member to fight against its own citizens is an unlawful order.
ShimmerinStrider
1st amendment gives you a voice. You choose if you use it and what for. 2nd gives you the ability to defend it, until death, if necessary.
Thanlarkis
With training and accountability. That's the dif.
ShimmerinStrider
Show me where it says that.
fantabuloustimewaster
“A —> well-regulated <— being necessary to the security of a free state, …”
Cargobiker530
"A well regulated militia..." It's right there in english.
merlecorey
just throwing it out there in the knowledge that the precedent is against it, it would be in the well regulated part which would imply 1/2
merlecorey
that regulations could be put in place defining what a militia is. 2/2
d0o0o0d
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246