unless black people are owning guns then they'll be all for gun control.. like when the black panthers armed themselves.
unless black people are owning guns then they’ll be all for gun control
Red states tend to have some of the most free firearms laws in the country. And many of those states, particularly in the south, have large black populations. In fact, many of them have explicitly killed policies that were used to discriminate based on race, namely may-issue permitting laws.
Pretty sure the above commenter was referencing the origins of California's strict gun laws.
One of the most liberal states in the Union?
SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.
ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.
Let me guess, you would "well regulate" all militias to be wealthy white people?
A well regulated watch is a watch in proper working order. 'Well regulated' does not mean 'to pass regulations' in this context.
Example sentences from online:
"regulate one's habits"
"regulate the pressure of a tire"
Now do militia.
Any way you cut it, the point was to have an armed citizenry capable of defending the country, and the 2nd was plainly defined in that context, so it makes perfect sense that the minimum requirement for bearing arms is being able to do so effectively: so where's the training? Where's the free gun after you prove yourself capable enough to be part of the national defense?
As it turns out, we have all that, it's called the U.S. Military, an all volunteer force for the defence of the nation. (They don't let you keep your gun anymore).
Want to do it part time, on an on-call basis? National Guard.
Id love it if we moved to the swiss model of mandatory training for everyone when they're old enough, issuing them a firearm, and telling them to stay trained just in case, that would be awesome. Instead we have "buy it at Walmart, figure it out", and zero part of that is run well.
so where’s the training
For civilians? Hunter safety, otherwise you're paying for a private tutor.
I'm all down for more training, so long as it's free. We should not gatekeep civil liberties behind fees.
Would you be okay with people having to pay $200 for a training class on how to vote before you were allowed to vote? Of course not. The same is true for the right to own a firearm.
Funny because you do have to pay for documents like a birth certificate and ID in order to vote in some places. When I got my ID renewed years ago my original birth certificate from the '80s was somehow no longer valid so I had to buy a new one for $60 from some government records company.
Both the Federalist papers, the militia acts, and current government code confirm that everyone not part of the standing military or national guard as the militia. The militia doesn't get free guns, they were expected to bring their own privately owned guns and ammunition when called upon. I would not mind free guns though.
Training should be part of the public education system, but gun/hunters safety and shooting sports have been removed because it's not kosher to expose kids/teens to guns. Due to the prevalence of guns in the US it just makes sense, because treating guns like abstinence only sex ed will have the same shitty results.
The "buy it at Walmart and figure it out" is because you can't lock rights behind hoops to jump through, so adopting a Swiss model and making fun education/training part of compulsory education is definitely a good minimum.
Almost removed. I was shocked to learn that the dude who just winged trump was not accepted to his school's fucking rifle team for being a shit shot. I'll repeat that because someone reading this may be old and remember it like I do, and as shocked as I was that that means his school had anactiverifle team in like 2022. What the dick?! In my area those ended at columbine and I lived in The goddamn South. That was actually the wildest part of the whole thing to me!
Still though I agree with you entirely, I just thought that was wild lol.
Then maybe we should make sure it's in proper working order. Because selling an 18 year old a handgun at Walmart with no training ain't that.
You must not be American. There are literally no Walmarts that sell handguns, and if they did, it wouldn't be legal to sell them to 18 year olds.
There are Indeed Walmarts that sell handguns (Alaska). And while there are no Walmarts that will sell a handgun to an 18yo, there are legal ways for an 18yo to both purchase and possess a handgun.
As of when? Jw, all Walmart locations at least in the continental US ceased sales of handguns, "assault rifles," and the rounds for them (excepting when they are also commonly a rifle rnd, .22lr to be exact), they no longer stock 9mm, .45, .357, 5.56 (still have .223 though lol), etc, after Parkland specifically.
And yes I miss my cheap and accessible ammo.
I specifically said Alaska.
Which is why I specified that my information pertains to the entire continental US at least, as the statement they made after Parkland said all stores. And again I ask, when is the last time you verified that they still had them? Did you see them 10yr ago or did you double check on Tuesday? Do you possibly have outdated info? Can you possibly read what I said instead of just dismissing my question?
In the post I responded to, they said there were "literally no Walmarts." They didn't say anything about the continental US. You only said anything about continental when you responded to my clarification, which is why I reminded you that I specifically said Alaska. Additionally, Alaska is part of the "continental" US. Perhaps you meant contiguous?
Walmart began a "no firearms" policy in 2019 after Parkland; shortly thereafter they quickly, quietly, but unevenly reversed those policies in 2020 due to "unrest" around the election--but not in all states.
Firearm policy at Walmart depends somewhat on the state you're in. Their firearms policy is no longer nationally consistent, though generally your description is accurate for the majority of Walmarts but, again, not all of them.
Nevertheless, as recently as a year ago, handguns were available in Walmart in Anchorage, because my friend and I each bought one when we were visiting friends and going bush hiking/camping and picking up supplies.
I didn't dismiss your question, I responded to your statement. The post I replied to wasn't a question. You only posed questions when you responded to my comment. Regardless, relax.
No they won't, they'll sell it to your parents who can legally transfer it to you. No 16yo is passing a NICs check.
I agree. Schools need to teach kids practical skills. Firearms handling and use among them. Other good ones would be how to file taxes, how credit cards/loans work, how to repair basic items around the house, how to cook basic meals, etc. It doesn't need to dominate schooling, a class or two covering the above in highschool would be plenty. Most of those topics are pretty short, but very important for life.
a militia in the constitution was similar to firefighters - you were expected to come help people and the failure to do so could result in losing your 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that a militia = a consumer is a modern rewrite.
Good thing we aren't watches and there's a definition that fits better.
You don't want to play the game of "we can apply modern definitions" to the Constitution.
Hopefully this elucidates why that's a bad idea:
Art 4 sect 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
It's not modern. Or at least 1792 English was a lot more modern than the gun lobby wants people to think. It absolutely included rules and regulations.
Also, which state isn't a republic? Point it out. Or are you trying to threaten us with twisting language even further to benefit a political party?
It is decidedly not the one used in that context given the history of America under the articles of confederation and the revolution.
I don't know who "us" is but I decidedly not threatening anyone. My point was that taking law to mean anything but what it meant is lunacy and will simply lead to people misreading it to achieve political goals defying the legislative process. Changes in law should be done via the legislature.
You can deny it all you want. The Etymology is clear. If they wanted to write it as "healthy" or "well oiled" they would have. Instead they used the word that meant to control by rules since the Roman Empire.
They also could have written "limited" but they didn't. The people at the time widely understood it to refer to a militia attended to, to ensure it efficacious. The regulations they had at the time were there to ensure they were well trained and armed. See the militia acts of 1792 & 1795 or for example or any of the other many acts from the period like 1786 N.H. Laws 409-10, An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within this State,. Which provided:
[E]very non-commissioned officer and soldier, both in the alarm list and training band, shall be provided, and have constantly in readiness, a good musket, and a bayonet fitted thereto, with a good scabbard and belt, a worm, priming-wire and brush, a cartridge-box that will hold at least twenty-four rounds, six flints, and a pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to his gun, a knap sack, a blanket, and a canteen that will hold one quart.
When they wanted their militias well regulated they meant this.
So you have polling from 1792 to cite? For the word being widely understood to mean something other than what it actually means?
If you go to the hyperlink above you can search for how regulating militia was used across the states during the founding period. They universally share the same efficacious meaning.
I'm going to trust the etymologists on this one. It's literally their field of study. You don't go to a mathematician for chemistry, and you don't go to a lawyer for history.
ETA- I had an extra moment so I took it for a spin and found this. I'm sure they're just talking about how freely you can transport explosives...
Entymologist notable studiers of the field of law not lawyers. You do go to lawyers for historical case law because that is the exact thing they've studied for their doctorate.
And that isn't analogous to militia regulation but rather cargo transportation restrictions similar to fire safety laws. Again betraying, that legal knowledge is actually helpful in understanding law. Rather than say a bastardized perversion of etymology used to confirm preexisting notions.
I'm sure they're just talking about how freely you can transport explosives...
But for your sarcasm this would have been your most salient thought in the thread.
Oh, I'm sorry. It only means your special meaning in the one special place you want to reference it?
No. It's fucking debunked. It was understood to mean regulations in the exact same way we mean it today. In law and in common usage.
Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
Militias don't exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That's the important part.
6A) ...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I would argue that the militia still exists it's just the government isn't doing it's duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It's the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren't militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can't replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
The National Guard are the modern militia. Deployable by the Governor, not the President.
A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn't deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; -Article 1 Sec 8
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; - Article 2 Sec 2
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So then only 17-45 year olds can legally own guns?
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn't be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
Can you provide any reputable evidence or citations to back this up?
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia
You're thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
That doesn't even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don't exist anymore. So it really doesn't need to either.
And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.
That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don't like them?
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
So why can't the militia put an age floor in? What's different about that rule as opposed to background checks?
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
That's not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we're all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it's just an unavoidable tragedy.
Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn't an honest conversation.
That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.
That's not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody's marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we've seen recently, "SCOTUS said" isn't a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.
It may be "the current ruling" but that doesn't make it right.
Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.
I'm a gun owner.
And I disagree with you.
If it was a big deal there would be a million man march in D.C. especially since these are federal rulings.
2A even has the term "well regulated" in it.
They only care about the second half.
unless black people are owning guns then they'll be all for gun control.. like when the black panthers armed themselves.
Red states tend to have some of the most free firearms laws in the country. And many of those states, particularly in the south, have large black populations. In fact, many of them have explicitly killed policies that were used to discriminate based on race, namely may-issue permitting laws.
Pretty sure the above commenter was referencing the origins of California's strict gun laws.
One of the most liberal states in the Union?
SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.
ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Heller, 2008.
Let me guess, you would "well regulate" all militias to be wealthy white people?
A well regulated watch is a watch in proper working order. 'Well regulated' does not mean 'to pass regulations' in this context.
Example sentences from online:
"regulate one's habits"
"regulate the pressure of a tire"
Now do militia.
Any way you cut it, the point was to have an armed citizenry capable of defending the country, and the 2nd was plainly defined in that context, so it makes perfect sense that the minimum requirement for bearing arms is being able to do so effectively: so where's the training? Where's the free gun after you prove yourself capable enough to be part of the national defense?
As it turns out, we have all that, it's called the U.S. Military, an all volunteer force for the defence of the nation. (They don't let you keep your gun anymore).
Want to do it part time, on an on-call basis? National Guard.
Id love it if we moved to the swiss model of mandatory training for everyone when they're old enough, issuing them a firearm, and telling them to stay trained just in case, that would be awesome. Instead we have "buy it at Walmart, figure it out", and zero part of that is run well.
For civilians? Hunter safety, otherwise you're paying for a private tutor.
I'm all down for more training, so long as it's free. We should not gatekeep civil liberties behind fees.
Would you be okay with people having to pay $200 for a training class on how to vote before you were allowed to vote? Of course not. The same is true for the right to own a firearm.
Funny because you do have to pay for documents like a birth certificate and ID in order to vote in some places. When I got my ID renewed years ago my original birth certificate from the '80s was somehow no longer valid so I had to buy a new one for $60 from some government records company.
Both the Federalist papers, the militia acts, and current government code confirm that everyone not part of the standing military or national guard as the militia. The militia doesn't get free guns, they were expected to bring their own privately owned guns and ammunition when called upon. I would not mind free guns though.
Training should be part of the public education system, but gun/hunters safety and shooting sports have been removed because it's not kosher to expose kids/teens to guns. Due to the prevalence of guns in the US it just makes sense, because treating guns like abstinence only sex ed will have the same shitty results.
The "buy it at Walmart and figure it out" is because you can't lock rights behind hoops to jump through, so adopting a Swiss model and making fun education/training part of compulsory education is definitely a good minimum.
Almost removed. I was shocked to learn that the dude who just winged trump was not accepted to his school's fucking rifle team for being a shit shot. I'll repeat that because someone reading this may be old and remember it like I do, and as shocked as I was that that means his school had an active rifle team in like 2022. What the dick?! In my area those ended at columbine and I lived in The goddamn South. That was actually the wildest part of the whole thing to me!
Still though I agree with you entirely, I just thought that was wild lol.
Then maybe we should make sure it's in proper working order. Because selling an 18 year old a handgun at Walmart with no training ain't that.
You must not be American. There are literally no Walmarts that sell handguns, and if they did, it wouldn't be legal to sell them to 18 year olds.
There are Indeed Walmarts that sell handguns (Alaska). And while there are no Walmarts that will sell a handgun to an 18yo, there are legal ways for an 18yo to both purchase and possess a handgun.
As of when? Jw, all Walmart locations at least in the continental US ceased sales of handguns, "assault rifles," and the rounds for them (excepting when they are also commonly a rifle rnd, .22lr to be exact), they no longer stock 9mm, .45, .357, 5.56 (still have .223 though lol), etc, after Parkland specifically.
And yes I miss my cheap and accessible ammo.
I specifically said Alaska.
Which is why I specified that my information pertains to the entire continental US at least, as the statement they made after Parkland said all stores. And again I ask, when is the last time you verified that they still had them? Did you see them 10yr ago or did you double check on Tuesday? Do you possibly have outdated info? Can you possibly read what I said instead of just dismissing my question?
In the post I responded to, they said there were "literally no Walmarts." They didn't say anything about the continental US. You only said anything about continental when you responded to my clarification, which is why I reminded you that I specifically said Alaska. Additionally, Alaska is part of the "continental" US. Perhaps you meant contiguous?
Walmart began a "no firearms" policy in 2019 after Parkland; shortly thereafter they quickly, quietly, but unevenly reversed those policies in 2020 due to "unrest" around the election--but not in all states.
Firearm policy at Walmart depends somewhat on the state you're in. Their firearms policy is no longer nationally consistent, though generally your description is accurate for the majority of Walmarts but, again, not all of them.
Nevertheless, as recently as a year ago, handguns were available in Walmart in Anchorage, because my friend and I each bought one when we were visiting friends and going bush hiking/camping and picking up supplies.
I didn't dismiss your question, I responded to your statement. The post I replied to wasn't a question. You only posed questions when you responded to my comment. Regardless, relax.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/12070582
Yes the fuck I did, reread it.
But also yes I meant contiguous lol.
K
But they will sell you a long rifle at 16.
No they won't, they'll sell it to your parents who can legally transfer it to you. No 16yo is passing a NICs check.
I agree. Schools need to teach kids practical skills. Firearms handling and use among them. Other good ones would be how to file taxes, how credit cards/loans work, how to repair basic items around the house, how to cook basic meals, etc. It doesn't need to dominate schooling, a class or two covering the above in highschool would be plenty. Most of those topics are pretty short, but very important for life.
a militia in the constitution was similar to firefighters - you were expected to come help people and the failure to do so could result in losing your 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that a militia = a consumer is a modern rewrite.
Good thing we aren't watches and there's a definition that fits better.
You don't want to play the game of "we can apply modern definitions" to the Constitution.
Hopefully this elucidates why that's a bad idea:
Art 4 sect 4
It's not modern. Or at least 1792 English was a lot more modern than the gun lobby wants people to think. It absolutely included rules and regulations.
Also, which state isn't a republic? Point it out. Or are you trying to threaten us with twisting language even further to benefit a political party?
It is decidedly not the one used in that context given the history of America under the articles of confederation and the revolution.
I don't know who "us" is but I decidedly not threatening anyone. My point was that taking law to mean anything but what it meant is lunacy and will simply lead to people misreading it to achieve political goals defying the legislative process. Changes in law should be done via the legislature.
You can deny it all you want. The Etymology is clear. If they wanted to write it as "healthy" or "well oiled" they would have. Instead they used the word that meant to control by rules since the Roman Empire.
They also could have written "limited" but they didn't. The people at the time widely understood it to refer to a militia attended to, to ensure it efficacious. The regulations they had at the time were there to ensure they were well trained and armed. See the militia acts of 1792 & 1795 or for example or any of the other many acts from the period like 1786 N.H. Laws 409-10, An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within this State,. Which provided:
When they wanted their militias well regulated they meant this.
So you have polling from 1792 to cite? For the word being widely understood to mean something other than what it actually means?
If you go to the hyperlink above you can search for how regulating militia was used across the states during the founding period. They universally share the same efficacious meaning.
I'm going to trust the etymologists on this one. It's literally their field of study. You don't go to a mathematician for chemistry, and you don't go to a lawyer for history.
ETA- I had an extra moment so I took it for a spin and found this. I'm sure they're just talking about how freely you can transport explosives...
Entymologist notable studiers of the field of law not lawyers. You do go to lawyers for historical case law because that is the exact thing they've studied for their doctorate.
And that isn't analogous to militia regulation but rather cargo transportation restrictions similar to fire safety laws. Again betraying, that legal knowledge is actually helpful in understanding law. Rather than say a bastardized perversion of etymology used to confirm preexisting notions.
But for your sarcasm this would have been your most salient thought in the thread.
Oh, I'm sorry. It only means your special meaning in the one special place you want to reference it?
No. It's fucking debunked. It was understood to mean regulations in the exact same way we mean it today. In law and in common usage.
Well Regulated meaning in working order and properly armed.
Militias don't exist anymore, accept as a term for a cosplaying gun club.
Remember, when this was written people thought a permanent military would be used against the citizens, so they thought it better to not have one.
There were supporters of a standing army at the time notably George Washington President of the national when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That's the important part.
I would argue that the militia still exists it's just the government isn't doing it's duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It's the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren't militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can't replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
The National Guard are the modern militia. Deployable by the Governor, not the President.
A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn't deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So then only 17-45 year olds can legally own guns?
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn't be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
Can you provide any reputable evidence or citations to back this up?
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
You're thinking of cops. And yes, cops are not well regulated.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
That doesn't even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don't exist anymore. So it really doesn't need to either.
And damn were they almost right a few times, and 100% were right if you count cops under that term.
That includes rules. You guys want to ignore an entire part of the definition of the word.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
Oh so now rules are okay under the 2nd amendment, you just don't like them?
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
So why can't the militia put an age floor in? What's different about that rule as opposed to background checks?
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
That's not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we're all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it's just an unavoidable tragedy.
Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn't an honest conversation.
That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.
That's not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody's marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we've seen recently, "SCOTUS said" isn't a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.
It may be "the current ruling" but that doesn't make it right.
Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.
I'm a gun owner.
And I disagree with you.
If it was a big deal there would be a million man march in D.C. especially since these are federal rulings.