Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore
Zackey Rahimi, the Texas criminal defendant challenging a federal gun law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said this summer that he no longer wanted to own firearms and expressed remorse for his actions that got him in trouble with the law.
“I will make sure for sure this time that when I finish my time being incarcerated to stay the faithful, righteous person I am this day, to stay away from all drugs at all times, do probation & parole rightfully, to go to school & have a great career, have a great manufacturing engineering job, to never break any law again, to stay away from the wrong circle, to stay away from all firearms & weapons, & to never be away from my family again,” Rahimi, who is being held at a Fort Worth jail, said in a handwritten letter dated July 25.
He continued: “I had firearms for the right reason in our place to be able to protect my family at all times especially for what we’ve went through in the past but I’ll make sure to do whatever it takes to be able to do everything the right pathway & to be able to come home fast as I can to take care of my family at all times.”
That sounds like well regulated militia is the spirit of the law. The reason for it, the intention, however you want to word it.
It says right in the text the purpose is to protect the security of the state.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...."
It follows that the state is what may regulate the militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Important parts in bold.
Stick your fingers in your ears and yell as loud as you want, its not gonna make the well regulated portion go away.
Not even beginning to mention the founders intentions of the constitution evolving over time, as the lethality, proliferation, and criminal usage of guns has skyrocketed since that amendment was written.
At least some of the founders had the intention of the second amendment allowing the population to overthrow tyrannical rulers.
Yeah i dont think guns are gonna get you very far with that.
Arms, not guns. Also, tell that to the Vietnamese, and Afghanis.
Since we're ignoring morality and effectiveness in favor of semantics and self-centredness, I propose that "arms" meant literal arms, attached to your body.
After all, you can't have a well regulated militia full of double amputees.
Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.
We arent talking about law in other countries, the second amendment only pertains to the US. So it would only pertain to you going to war with the US military and police force.
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.
Damn, vietnam overthrew the US?
You've got to be trying to be that obtuse.
no, see you've gone onto overthrowing the US government as a justification for the second amendment, and used the Vietnam War as an example of guns defeating the US. But they didn't overthrow the US government, they never tried to or got anywhere in the vicinity of it. The US suffered embarrassingly high casualties, but Vietnamese got slaughtered, and US military left after massive pushback from US voters, not from an inability to continue
It was not the scenario of a US dictatorship being risen against. If that scenario were ever to happen, it's entirely gonna hinge on the loyalty of the military, whether or not they'd go to war against US citizens. It doesn't matter if they're armed or not.
The point is that an armed populace isn't just rolled over by the largest military in the world. Everybody thinks the "what do you think guns will do against jets" is such a gotcha, but there's lots of evidence even fighting foreign powers it's not that simple. Then you must consider that lots of the US military is pretty big on guns and you have a high likelihood of defection or sabotage of the military. And then even after that any use of the military in our own soil will be extremely unpopular creating even more insurgents.
Something the second amendment has accomplished exactly zero times.