Lady says the cops threatened to accuse her of a parole violation if she talked to the press. She’s uncooperative af.
7 Likes
JFC
8 Likes
Yes, prevailing views of the 2nd amendment really only applying to militias and the like made it an amendment that didn’t actually protect anything for private citizens. Until We got a super conservative Supreme Court in 2008 that has only gotten more conservative since.
Edit: You also have to remember that the bill of rights started out as restrictions on the federal government only, not the state governments. These rights getting extended to state governments is a relatively recent phenomenon called “selective incorporation” based on the 14th amendment. Some rights still haven’t been “selectively incorporated” by the Supreme Court.
Here are some more stupid questions:
-
So, pre-2008, any state that wanted to could have essentially had full gun control for anything not militia-related (which is nearly everything)?
-
What’s up with AR-15s specifically right now? Are some jurisdictions allowing them because they think they come under traditional use and others banning them because they think that they don’t?
Yeah, the National Guard would be the modern equivalent of what was meant by “the militia”. The Constitution lays out the purpose of “the militia” in the powers it grants to Congress:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Unless you think anyone can argue with a straight face that “traditional lawful uses” of guns require an AR-15, and I don’t see how you could argue that, whether they are legal or not is entirely a matter of legislation. They are already heavily restricted in California iirc.
SCOTUS would interpret it to mean Bugaloo Boys.
It’s complicated. Some would define it as male able-bodied citizens of fighting age, citing the second Militia Act of 1792. One argument is that everyone who might be called to serve in the militia should have access to appropriate weapons that they are supposed to bring themselves instead of having them be provided by the state.
Wow that guy’s feed is absolutely rabid.
This is literally exactly what lots of Texans argue. And they absolutely do it with a straight face. Partisanship and stupidity allows them to pull it off with ease.
If I understand you correctly, Feds could outlaw them and then States would have to appeal to SC, since Heller doesn’t specifically address AR15s.
Are they really even wrong? Owning a private arsenal as a collector/hobbyist has been a thing for so now long it’s arguably an American tradition.
I’d nit you and in that case say that in that instance they are not being "used’. Hence “traditional use” doesn’t apply.
In 1784 the US Army had 80 people. Militias were the things that were supposed to be called together when there was a war. It wasn’t long until the US Army started to grow, but at the time the Constitution was written it wasn’t supposed to be a permanent thing.
I know it’s impossible for me to be objective, but I just can’t see how someone reads the text of the second amendment and doesn’t come to one of the two following conclusions.
-
The militia part is critical. These days, if we need a militia, the government will give you all the guns you need. So there is nothing wrong with banning all personal guns. No one is using their personal guns in the contemporary equivalent of a militia.
-
The militia part doesn’t matter. It says “the right … to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Therefore, you can own a nuke, and the government can’t stop you.
Anything else seems like Calvinball.
I know, I know. It’s all Calvinball.
1 Like
i just now noticed guns on the roof. would be something if they slid down and fell on someone’s head
Or fell off the roof, discharged, and shot one of them in the face.
1 Like