Do you believe that the argument for gun rights that is made in the Second Amendment is justified?
The second amendment allows citizens to fight a tyrannical government
Yes but that’s not the only reason
Sure. I’m all in favor of a “well regulated militia”.
Good, so you agree that the 2A refers to an individuals right to own weapons and that that right shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms includes that, the fear comes from that, but the founding fathers said and made it clear that the citizens of America always have the right to have a gun. They made the 2nd amendment general fir a reason
No gangs are allowed that is not in the amendment. Militia is a people's army while gangs are groups who fight over territory
Everyday of the week.
Yes a "well regulated" people's army....
Yes, as long as they belong to a "well regulated miltia"...
Why would a regulated militia fight the state if it is the state? See, it isn't talking about a militia you're thinking about. It's talking about the people 😂
I don't think anyone denies that a militia is made up of "people". The key is a "well regulated" militia......
Historian Roxanne Dunbar wrote extensively on the background of the 2nd amendment being a text to allow groups of settlers to arm themselves against Native nations. So no.
If it were the common argument about a tyrannical government I'd agree, but every jabroni that wanks themselves over the 2nd doesn't pick up arms against the US government so no one actually agrees with their own arguments.
Don't really need to study to hard. It's right there in black and white....
Do u disagree with the right to own guns or the militia part
Or? I'm not the one separating the 2.....
So u disagree with both.
I *believe* the 2A is arguing that people have the right to form gangs and those gangs get to have weapons. I think that IS a natural right all have...which is what is recognized in the constitutional amendments.
Your idol Scalia disagreed.
The argument that the people need arms in order to overthrow a corrupt government if a need for it ever arose.
It’s a moot point and not worth spending time on because the 2A refers to an individual right. Aside from your ignoring SCOTUS rulings I don’t see how you can misread it even in its raw form.
But the ruling has never been 100%, so it's just how the court breaks down and how they "interpret" it....
Me? I think that militias have the right of armament. I’m not talking the crap you find in the secret back room of a surplus store. 2A means, if they can afford it, then militias should be able to get tanks, anti-aircraft, rockets, and even blades longer than four inches.
I think that gangs do qualify as militia. I think 2A, properly interpreted, would allow gangs to be armed to the teeth. Then the US Government would be able to focus on laws that held them accountable for their actions, rather than their stockpiles.
I understand that Jimmy Hoffa was finally jailed on tax evasion. I understand that extreme arms would allow for some crazy stealth ops by idiots, yet would be hard to track back to punish. Police would have to get better at their job quickly.
I do NOT think 2A gives individuals the right to arms. I, myself, don’t have the right to a four inch blade - as evidenced by local laws In various jurisdictions.
What militias, other than gangs, are you aware of?
It isn’t the only reason, nor is it the most common argument. It is simply the primary justification upon which the amendment stands. There are more arguments about gun ownership to be had, but I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on this factor.
I read it different than you do. Just like many judges have before....
Settled law for now, but the fact that circuit judges have interpreted it different proves that with the right make up on the court it could be reversed.