This spring, i had once a bit fever, nauseous, a little collapse too. After a day it was over, then a rebellious belly for a week. I was often sooner tired, less energy for a while after that. My sis, living with her husband, had the same. That was the new covid, right?
I think it will result in an increase in gun sales, like all the other times gun restrictions were being pushed by the government (and other lackeys of the owner class).
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Advocates for tighter gun restrictions in Pennsylvania seized on the shooting to urge state lawmakers to pass bills already introduced into the state legislature that would expand background checks, temporarily remove guns from potentially dangerous people and raise the minimum age to purchase rifles similar to the one used in the attack to 21 from 18.
Why do you think this, fascism has never been defeated by armed popular uprisings. Even in the best case of the Spanish civil war where the workers were armed by the Republic, combined with the remnants of the Republican regular army and the Republican state capacity, they still lost to the fascists.
That was in early twentieth century Spain with a very small liberal middle class and huge swaths of deprived poor industrial and rural workers which faced even more deprivation under a fascist regime making them actually willing to fight. The vast majority of Americans, like the middle class in Germany, would go along with fascism if it meant they got to keep the material comfort they’ve accrued, which it probably will if it plans to succeed. Also civil war Spain had a massive labor and communist movement to organize the workers while America is completely atomized and hostile to any left organizing. Maybe 10% of Americans would rise up if the fascists started the purges, and that amount of untrained, unorganized armed mass can easily be defeated by the army.
Meanwhile, the gun rights group Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which was among the organizations that challenged the law, cheered the decision.
“This is a resounding victory for 18-20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Bryan Strawser, the group’s chairman, said in a statement.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Shouldn’t conservatives be outraged that they stopped at age 18? The text in the 2nd amendment doesn’t have an age limit. Aren’t toddlers “people”? Logically the fucked up conservative courts should be ruling that babies can buy any gun they want. Because in their stupid world, the “well regulated” words have no meaning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . 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.
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.
That novel theory fails on so many merits. Such as why would they have felt a need to specify that aspects at the time? Under the proper interpretation it make perfect sense as some states had failed to maintain an effective militia. As another commentor pointed out, the original interpretation of the word survives today:
On matters of law that view had been invalidated before its inception. In the words of early justice Joseph Story:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The original meaning is to create rules. Well functioning devices wasn’t associated with it until 1660. Nobody is saying that’s not one of the meanings. But it’s meant to create rules since the literal Roman empire, and as I’ve demonstrated was used that way legally by our founding fathers.
The founding fathers were famously divided on federal power. The 2nd amendment is their compromise. Meant to be read in plain English. It doesn’t need partisan spin. If I cared though I could go find the other side to it but I don’t need to. They made sure of that by putting it in writing and cherry picking stuff isn’t going to change that.
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.
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.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.