People who say that actually want a complete and total ban on guns, but acknowledge the constitution says what it says and amendments are literally impossible in today’s political climate.
Also, one could argue a “well regulated” militia wouldn’t send guns home with its members. It could be kept at a central facility.
I know they do, I was actually specifically calling that out, as they always say “nuh uh” when you point out that they do in fact want a total ban on self defense.
One could argue anything, doesn’t make them actually correct. “The militia” is defined “as all able bodied males age 17-45,” not as “the national guard, which is a military branch not a militia.” As such, this argument says to me that “all able bodied males age 17-45” should be able to own guns and nobody else, no women, nobody in a wheelchair or with anything that would disqualify one medically from service like colorblindness, etc. Of course, that is ridiculous, but that’s why I prefer the “actually knows english” approach to that particular argument.
It’s still not necessary to qualify it that way. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.
Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.
We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.
Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.
That’s an interesting idea. Maybe in situations like this, the governor should activate the militia to hunt this guy down. Allow the community to protect itself instead of relying only on the cops. Lots of things could go wrong, but still, it could show the intent of the 2a.
In a sense this is already in effect to the degree that is…necessary, or maybe the word I should use is “appropriate.” If anyone who is carrying arms runs into this guy, knows what he looks like and gets a positive ID, and knows what he’s done, while it isn’t 100% legal to draw on him unless he’s presenting an active threat (i.e he has a gun out), no DA in the country would charge you with brandishing. Then from there you say freeze, he reaches for his gun, shit happens.
The problem with deputizing the entire county for a manhunt though is giving people real authority can have some ill effects, and is pretty much guaranteeing mob justice to become a norm again. I’d say we’re at the happy medium of “nobody will question you if you do find him, but I’m not going to imbue you with the authority of the state per se.”
People who say that actually want a complete and total ban on guns, but acknowledge the constitution says what it says and amendments are literally impossible in today’s political climate.
Also, one could argue a “well regulated” militia wouldn’t send guns home with its members. It could be kept at a central facility.
I know they do, I was actually specifically calling that out, as they always say “nuh uh” when you point out that they do in fact want a total ban on self defense.
One could argue anything, doesn’t make them actually correct. “The militia” is defined “as all able bodied males age 17-45,” not as “the national guard, which is a military branch not a militia.” As such, this argument says to me that “all able bodied males age 17-45” should be able to own guns and nobody else, no women, nobody in a wheelchair or with anything that would disqualify one medically from service like colorblindness, etc. Of course, that is ridiculous, but that’s why I prefer the “actually knows english” approach to that particular argument.
It’s still not necessary to qualify it that way. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.
Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.
Nothing is settled with this supreme court.
OK well go tell them about that and see what they have to say about it.
We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.
Wtf. I just googled that. How has that been allowed to continue foe a hund and fifty fucking years?? Jesus H. Christ.
Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.
I don’t know much about that, but if that would get rid of qualified immunity for police then I concur.
That’s the case that caused QI in 1982. The 16 missing words explicitly outlaw any sort of immunity for any government officials.
Agree 100%.
That’s an interesting idea. Maybe in situations like this, the governor should activate the militia to hunt this guy down. Allow the community to protect itself instead of relying only on the cops. Lots of things could go wrong, but still, it could show the intent of the 2a.
That’s like, horror movie levels of scary.
In a sense this is already in effect to the degree that is…necessary, or maybe the word I should use is “appropriate.” If anyone who is carrying arms runs into this guy, knows what he looks like and gets a positive ID, and knows what he’s done, while it isn’t 100% legal to draw on him unless he’s presenting an active threat (i.e he has a gun out), no DA in the country would charge you with brandishing. Then from there you say freeze, he reaches for his gun, shit happens.
The problem with deputizing the entire county for a manhunt though is giving people real authority can have some ill effects, and is pretty much guaranteeing mob justice to become a norm again. I’d say we’re at the happy medium of “nobody will question you if you do find him, but I’m not going to imbue you with the authority of the state per se.”
Sounds like a legal nightmare