California unbans cool guns

  • 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#1  Edited By vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

A federal judge overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons Friday, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state's definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said.

He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Article

Decision

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#2  Edited By TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

This is a blatant court overreach and puts millions at risk.

Not shocked it was by a right winger.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

16184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 16184 Posts

I want my right to bear arms.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#4 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

Well the judge isn't wrong. The Second Amendment is CLEARLY not about hunting though hoplophobes try to obfuscate that fact and convince others it is. And when the founding fathers were asked if the 2A included certain types of weapons including cannons, they reaffirmed them that it did. I expect similar cases to be brought to the court in states like NY as well.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#6  Edited By TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

@eoten: He is wrong and this is a dangerous overreach. I hope California fights this to the end. And if upheld, get this clown off the bench and try again.

The constitution is a living document, what the founding fathers said holds no weight. Your views should hold up on their own.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#7 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: He is wrong and this is a dangerous overreach. I hope California fights this to the end. And if upheld, get this clown off the bench and try again.

The constitution is a living document, what the founding fathers said holds no weight. Your views should hold up on their own.

Wrong? How is he wrong? The constitution is not, never was, nor will ever be a "living document" outside of states having a convention to add or remove parts of it. You cannot wake up one day and pretend what is written in it means something different, interpret it your own way, then make laws that go against it. What the founding fathers said when they wrote the words that to this day are still the law of the land states are required to follow, hold all the weight.

Trying to call following the written law as "dangerous overreach" because it isn't what you want is comical.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6220 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten:

And it is a dangerous overreach, his interpretation is wrong. Just because it gets interpreted your way doesn’t automatically make it right. Things get interpreted differently all the time, you can’t just pick and choose which you like and call that the law. Look it up, things get challenged and get interpreted differently all the time as laws and previous views were wrong.

Edit: Lol! You edited part of your post. Your edit shows you know it is.

A dangerous overreach by the judge but perfectly acceptable when a state arbitrarily bans a firearm?

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

125311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 125311 Posts

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172997 Posts

@eoten said:

Well the judge isn't wrong. The Second Amendment is CLEARLY not about hunting though hoplophobes try to obfuscate that fact and convince others it is. And when the founding fathers were asked if the 2A included certain types of weapons including cannons, they reaffirmed them that it did. I expect similar cases to be brought to the court in states like NY as well.

The second amendment is CLEARLY about well regulated militias.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15404 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:

Well the judge isn't wrong. The Second Amendment is CLEARLY not about hunting though hoplophobes try to obfuscate that fact and convince others it is. And when the founding fathers were asked if the 2A included certain types of weapons including cannons, they reaffirmed them that it did. I expect similar cases to be brought to the court in states like NY as well.

The second amendment is CLEARLY about well regulated militias.

When it comes to the second amendment conservatives bend themselves into pretzels over literal readings of the constitution. It's where self proclaimed "textualists" show that they are just being political hacks.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

20255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 20255 Posts

@zaryia: Still better than originalists.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#14 TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

@horgen: That’s why the constitution is a living document, to discuss those things. And what a well regulated militia is. Conservatives love to ignore that.

@Solaryellow: It wasn’t arbitrary……..

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

7654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#15 pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 7654 Posts

@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Musket rifles that take a full minute to reload one shot.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#16 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172997 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

Musket was a generic term used for any handheld long gun FYI.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#18  Edited By vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

Musket was a generic term used for any handheld long gun FYI.

Thanks, tips. FYI that generic term wasn't used until mid 19th century, well after the 2nd amendment was written. Before that, musket was used specifically for muzzle loaders

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172997 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

Musket was a generic term used for any handheld long gun FYI.

Thanks, tips. FYI that generic term wasn't used until mid 19th century, well after the 2nd amendment was written. Before that, musket was used specifically for muzzle loaders

The second amendment also did not apply to semi automatic weapons.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#20 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

This is true. Rifled muzzleloaders at the time were more common civilian weapons. The reason military didn't use them is because of the fouling caused by the burning of black powder, the rifling would get gummed up and have to be cleaned more regularly. They couldn't handle the higher volume of fire over a longer period of time that muskets could.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#21 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

Still waiting on TheNation (isn't that Yessir?) to tell us how this puts lives at risk.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

125311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 125311 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

So... A minigun?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#23  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@horgen said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

So... A minigun?

Did I say a minigun? Muskets were the equivalent of today's "assault rifles." The purpose of the Second Amendment as laid out by the founders is for the citizens to be able to defend themselves from modern military. This is also why merchants were explicitly told by them that it protected their right to arm themselves with cannons as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting like you people seem to think it does.

And lastly, the founders were well aware of firearms that could shoot as quickly as modern assault rifles. They existed then. They didn't object to those either. A free people doesn't have to ask their government for permission.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

125311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 125311 Posts

@eoten said:
@horgen said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

So... A minigun?

Did I say a minigun? Muskets were the equivalent of today's "assault rifles." The purpose of the Second Amendment as laid out by the founders is for the citizens to be able to defend themselves from modern military. This is also why merchants were explicitly told by them that it protected their right to arm themselves with cannons as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting like you people seem to think it does.

And lastly, the founders were well aware of firearms that could shoot as quickly as modern assault rifles. They existed then. They didn't object to those either. A free people doesn't have to ask their government for permission.

So you two are the same account?

I am just curious where the line is drawn for a weapon to be within the second amendment.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

46796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#25 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 46796 Posts

I look forward to buying some new awesome pew-pews.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#26 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@horgen said:
@eoten said:
@horgen said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@horgen said:

What is considered acceptable arms within the 2nd amendment?

Some people will say it was all about muskets while ignoring the fact that muskets were military grade hardware back then. During the revolutionary war, they allowed private merchant ships to carry cannons on them.

So... A minigun?

Did I say a minigun? Muskets were the equivalent of today's "assault rifles." The purpose of the Second Amendment as laid out by the founders is for the citizens to be able to defend themselves from modern military. This is also why merchants were explicitly told by them that it protected their right to arm themselves with cannons as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting like you people seem to think it does.

And lastly, the founders were well aware of firearms that could shoot as quickly as modern assault rifles. They existed then. They didn't object to those either. A free people doesn't have to ask their government for permission.

So you two are the same account?

I am just curious where the line is drawn for a weapon to be within the second amendment.

I thought you were responding to me saying muskets were used for their higher rate of fire and ability to go longer without cleaning.

also, the predecessor to the minigun, the Gatling gun, took much of its inspiration from the Puckle gun, which has been available since the early 1700s. Long before the 2A was written. And who should draw that line? Do you really trust government enough to draw them when it is made up by people like Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel, etc?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#27 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

I look forward to buying some new awesome pew-pews.

I am looking forward to suits being filed in other states like NY, Maryland, Illinois, etc to have their stupid laws tossed out as well.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15404 Posts
@thenation said:

@horgen: That’s why the constitution is a living document, to discuss those things. And what a well regulated militia is. Conservatives love to ignore that.

@Solaryellow: It wasn’t arbitrary……..

Like I said what would happen, the conservatives ITT are turning themselves into pretzels over the literal statements in the constitution. They can't square them. US has quite the gun violence epidemic. This gun infatuation, including the ones posted by far right people ITT, is actually super bizarre.

But the facts don't lie either way,

States with strict gun laws have fewer firearms deaths. Here's how your state stacks up (cnbc.com)

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6220 Posts

@eoten said:

Still waiting on TheNation (isn't that Yessir?) to tell us how this puts lives at risk.

Would that dissertation be based on emotion or facts?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#30 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@Solaryellow said:
@eoten said:

Still waiting on TheNation (isn't that Yessir?) to tell us how this puts lives at risk.

Would that dissertation be based on emotion or facts?

That remains to be seen. But I'm guessing he cannot explain how either way.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#32 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@zaryia said:
@thenation said:

@horgen: That’s why the constitution is a living document, to discuss those things. And what a well regulated militia is. Conservatives love to ignore that.

@Solaryellow: It wasn’t arbitrary……..

Like I said what would happen, the conservatives ITT are turning themselves into pretzels over the literal statements in the constitution.

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

Libs always forget the bolded part. The militia is the people.

The term "right" applied to "the people" appears several times in the constitution, and it always means an individual right for all citizens.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15404 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten:

And comparing muskets to semi automatic weapons is laughable.

Yup that's one of many pretzel moments I predicted.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172997 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@zaryia said:
@thenation said:

@horgen: That’s why the constitution is a living document, to discuss those things. And what a well regulated militia is. Conservatives love to ignore that.

@Solaryellow: It wasn’t arbitrary……..

Like I said what would happen, the conservatives ITT are turning themselves into pretzels over the literal statements in the constitution.

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

Libs always forget the bolded part. The militia is the people.

The term "right" applied to "the people" appears several times in the constitution, and it always means an individual right for all citizens.

That's not true but the cons do what you just did. Cherry pick and pretend the beginning of the sentence isn't there.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#35  Edited By TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin: Do you know what a militia is? And it says well regulated, not everybody go gun crazy.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6220 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: Are you serious? You are Silentchief right? No way a state with high crime and poverty could ever see a problem when people get access to military grade weapons. Seesh.

And comparing muskets to semi automatic weapons is laughable.

Then why not ban ALL semi auto firearms rather than just scary looking rifles, excuse me, "military grade" weapons?

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

46796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#37 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 46796 Posts

@eoten said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

I look forward to buying some new awesome pew-pews.

I am looking forward to suits being filed in other states like NY, Maryland, Illinois, etc to have their stupid laws tossed out as well.

The Supreme Court is already taking a case from NY; it will be interesting to see how they address conceal carry later on the court calendar. Will also be looking over some investments if the State's appeal fails. A very large market opening up in California again will be very fruitful.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#38 TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

@Stevo_the_gamer: Will be overturned later. This is only happening because Trump gave conservatives the court. When the left gets it back the laws will go back to the way they should:

@Solaryellow: Not all semi automatic weapons are military grade.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#39 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: Are you serious? You are Silentchief right? No way a state with high crime and poverty could ever see a problem when people get access to military grade weapons. Seesh.

And comparing muskets to semi automatic weapons is laughable.

Except AR-15s and AKs are still legal in California. The only thing California banned were cosmetic features in an attempt to inconvenience people who own them, not to actually protect anyone or stop crime because they're still available in an altered, and just as lethal configuration. So again, you make an assertion based on emotion, not fact. Unless you're going to tell me the way a gun LOOKS makes it more dangerous, you lost on that one.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

46796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#40 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 46796 Posts

@thenation said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: Will be overturned later. This is only happening because Trump gave conservatives the court. When the left gets it back the laws will go back to the way they should:

@Solaryellow: Not all semi automatic weapons are military grade.

You must be doing pretty well monetarily if your crystal ball is that good.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#41 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4119 Posts
@thenation said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: Will be overturned later. This is only happening because Trump gave conservatives the court. When the left gets it back the laws will go back to the way they should:

@Solaryellow: Not all semi automatic weapons are military grade.

It'll likely be overturned by the 9th, but the 9th itself is the most overturned by the Supreme Court, where ultimately, the original ruling is going to be upheld. This isn't happening because of any political affiliation of judges, it's happening because California doesn't have the authority to go against the constitution.

Also, the judge who overturned this was not a Trump appointee.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

46796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#43 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 46796 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: Clearly you don’t pay attention to what’s going on. But that’s ok.

@Stevo_the_gamer: It’s called facts. This happens all the time. One side gets power and interprets things one way, then when the other side gets power they go another. You are posting in a thread where that literally just happened.

I guess that's a no then.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#44 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:
@zaryia said:

Like I said what would happen, the conservatives ITT are turning themselves into pretzels over the literal statements in the constitution.

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

Libs always forget the bolded part. The militia is the people.

The term "right" applied to "the people" appears several times in the constitution, and it always means an individual right for all citizens.

That's not true but the cons do what you just did. Cherry pick and pretend the beginning of the sentence isn't there.

Cherry-picked? I just mentioned that the militia and the people are one in the same. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to mention "right of the people". It would be the right of the militia. You are the one who cherry picks by constantly mentioning the "well regulated militia" without even finishing the rest of the sentence.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#46 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@thenation said:

@vl4d_l3nin: Past rulings disagree with that. They are two separate clauses.

@Stevo_the_gamer: 🤦‍♂️ It literally just happened. Nevermind.

So what is the "peoples right to bear arms"? What does that mean, if not the ability to arm oneself?

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#47  Edited By TheNation
Member since 2021 • 422 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin: Read the entire thing. It regards a well regulated militia. You can’t ignore half of the amendment. The people’s right to bear arms will not be infringed in the guise of keeping a well regulated militia. Key part well regulated.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172997 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

That's not true but the cons do what you just did. Cherry pick and pretend the beginning of the sentence isn't there.

Cherry-picked? I just mentioned that the militia and the people are one in the same. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need to mention "right of the people". It would be the right of the militia. You are the one who cherry picks by constantly mentioning the "well regulated militia" without even finishing the rest of the sentence.

Nope. Back when the passed that amendment they didn't have a standing army so the people were allowed to have guns because they were a militia that trained weekends.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#49 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2933 Posts

@thenation said:

@vl4d_l3nin: Read the entire thing. It regards a well regulated militia. You can’t ignore half of the amendment. The people’s right to bear arms will be infringed in the guise of keeping a well regulated militia. Key part well regulated.

So it "shall not be infringed" unless it is to be infringed?

Y'all got you're head wrapped around "well regulated" thinking that means government intervention, when this was written during a time when people thought standing armies were a threat to liberty. Well regulated just means well trained, and it's a personal responsibility.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15404 Posts

@thenation said:

@vl4d_l3nin: Read the entire thing. It regards a well regulated militia. You can’t ignore half of the amendment. The people’s right to bear arms will not be infringed in the guise of keeping a well regulated militia. Key part well regulated.

Yeah it's very clear.

But screw logic and facts, they have an bizarre and unhealthy obsession with these objects of death.