• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU: Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

After the Civil War.
Goes a long way to exaplin why "None of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the states until after the Civil War.", eh?
 
That's a very expansive reading of the clause you refer to, any examples of actual court cases that would support your claim? Imo, your inclusion of incorporating those rights to the states is specious. None of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the states until after the Civil War.

"Section 8

The Congress shall have Power"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Is there anything here that indicates that the federal government didn't have the power to determine who gets to be in the militia and how they would be armed?

I noted that the Second wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 - do you have an issue with that claim?
 
Goes a long way to exaplin why "None of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the states until after the Civil War.", eh?
It does.

"The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally."
 
"Section 8

The Congress shall have Power"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Is there anything here that indicates that the federal government didn't have the power to determine who gets to be in the militia and how they would be armed?

I noted that the Second wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010 - do you have an issue with that claim?
The plain text "...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Yes I dispute your 2010 date. The 2nd was incorporated to the states with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. You are referring to the incorporation of the 2nd as an individual right as a result of the Heller decision.
 
With or without the Second Amendment, the federal government can call the states' militia into federal service and disarm them...
Are you even remotely serious? Even the most casual glance at the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that its purpose was to prevent the federal government from rendering militias useless.

the governor's posses and Sheriff's posses could continue chasing slaves and putting down slave rebellions.
Those "posses" were militias.

The Second doesn't enhance or prevent the states from doing whatever they want to do with armed state forces and slaves.
The Constitution stipulates that states can appoint officers and train militias, but the federal government can command them. The 2nd Amendment ensures that the federal government can't render the militias useless. See how that works?

The Second cannot protect the arms of the militia given the powers granted to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 and Article 2, Clause 2.
Hellllo? It can, and it does. In fact, that's the point. E.g. Article 1 could be interpreted to mean that the federal government could disband the militias, which is what terrified Patrick Henry and other Virginians. Thus... part of the reason... why they added the 2nd Amendment... AFTER the Constitution was ratified... was to ensure that the federal government can regulate arms and militias, but not to the point where the militias can't function.

If the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias, then why did it mention militias? :unsure:

No they wouldn't be. 10 USC 246 defines the militia at the federal level.
Oh, you mean the law that was first written in 1956? Yeah, that's clearly relevant to militias operating in 1790. 😗🎶

In Colorado, Article 17 defines the militia at the state level. Is the Colorado State Patrol and the various county sheriffs' departments the militia? No.
The Colorado State Patrol isn't a slave patrol. And slave patrols were militias. 🤷‍♂️

The Founders felt that the right to keep and bear arms included an individual right...
No, they didn't. Aside from you failing to note how 9 states didn't have protections of arms in their state constitutions, even your own quotes all refer to defense of the state, and/or the need for militias to avoid having a standing army. If the intent was individual rights, they wouldn't have mentioned the state or anything military at all.

Given that the Second can't protect the arms of the militia and that states could organize armed state and county forces to manage slavery, the claim that Second is based on racism is spurious, as is any claim that it only protects a collective right.
....except that everything you're citing, and parts of the original texts that you blatantly and tendentiously ignore, pretty much proves that the intention was collective.

I mean, really. Why would Scalia need to blather on for over 60 pages, trying to rewrite history in an attempt to prove that the 2nd Amendment "really" referred to individual rights, if it was so obvious?
 
Good idea.
You can start by removing the requirement to present an ID when buying a gun; this requirement intentionally discriminates against poor minorities who do not have the means necessary to obtain one.

Chuckle.
 
The plain text "...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Yes I dispute your 2010 date. The 2nd was incorporated to the states with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. You are referring to the incorporation of the 2nd as an individual right as a result of the Heller decision.
The incorporation of the BoR against the states by the 14th didn't affect the militia at all.

The individual right was recognized in Cruikshank and later in US v Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990.
 
You disagree?
Why do you want to discriminate against poor minorities who do not have the means necessary to obtain an ID?
 
Are you even remotely serious? Even the most casual glance at the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that its purpose was to prevent the federal government from rendering militias useless.
It can't prevent the federal government from rendering militia useless given the powers of the federal government enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2. The federal government could simply federalize the state militia and disarm them, given those powers.
Those "posses" were militias.
No they weren't. Militias are defined constitutionally. The Colorado State Patrol isn't a militia under Article 17 of the Colorado constitution.

The Constitution stipulates that states can appoint officers and train militias, but the federal government can command them. The 2nd Amendment ensures that the federal government can't render the militias useless. See how that works?
The feds can render the militia useless the state at will, if the president and Congress are aligned to do so. What good is the Virginia state militia in chasing escaped slaves if the Virginia state militia is sitting on the Maine/Canada border with no guns?
Hellllo? It can, and it does. In fact, that's the point. E.g. Article 1 could be interpreted to mean that the federal government could disband the militias, which is what terrified Patrick Henry and other Virginians. Thus... part of the reason... why they added the 2nd Amendment... AFTER the Constitution was ratified... was to ensure that the federal government can regulate arms and militias, but not to the point where the militias can't function.
But they can disarm the militia. It's an enumerated power.
If the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias, then why did it mention militias? :unsure:
As a sufficient but not necessary condition. If the feds muster and march off the state militia, the only defense to that is to raise another militia in opposition to the government. That's going to take guns in the hands of private citizens to form the new militia.
Oh, you mean the law that was first written in 1956? Yeah, that's clearly relevant to militias operating in 1790. 😗🎶
You can check the Militia Acts of 1792 if you wish, but you're not going to find anything different.
The Colorado State Patrol isn't a slave patrol. And slave patrols were militias. 🤷‍♂️
Are you suggesting that when a sheriff called up his posse of local citizens to chase down an escaped slave that that body of men was a militia as defined by federal or state constitutions?
No, they didn't. Aside from you failing to note how 9 states didn't have protections of arms in their state constitutions, even your own quotes all refer to defense of the state, and/or the need for militias to avoid having a standing army. If the intent was individual rights, they wouldn't have mentioned the state or anything military at all.
These noted an individual and collective right. Let's revisit them:

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State --

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).


Would the right to self defense rest solely on the ability of a citizen's presence in a militia?
....except that everything you're citing, and parts of the original texts that you blatantly and tendentiously ignore, pretty much proves that the intention was collective.
How can the right to bear arms for self defense be collective?

I mean, really. Why would Scalia need to blather on for over 60 pages, trying to rewrite history in an attempt to prove that the 2nd Amendment "really" referred to individual rights, if it was so obvious?
Why did Breyer and Stevens ignore prior cases?
 
It can't prevent the federal government from rendering militia useless given the powers of the federal government enumerated in Article 1....
Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.

Militias are defined constitutionally.
Incorrect. The Constitution never defines the term "militia."

By the way, the Colorado Constitution wasn't ratified until 1876. I'm not sure when Article XVII was ratified, it could have been even later.

The feds can render the militia useless the state at will, if the president and Congress are aligned to do so. What good is the Virginia state militia in chasing escaped slaves if the Virginia state militia is sitting on the Maine/Canada border with no guns?
...and yet again, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear they can't disarm them. Unless you believe that a militia that is ordered to surrender all its weapons is an example of a "well-regulated militia." :unsure:

But they can disarm the militia. It's an enumerated power.
Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.

As a sufficient but not necessary condition. If the feds muster and march off the state militia, the only defense to that is to raise another militia in opposition to the government. That's going to take guns in the hands of private citizens to form the new militia.
sigh... Why did I expect you to actually answer the question?

Yet again: If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms, it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And... that is not how it is written.

No "sufficient" conditions were mentioned to justify freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protections from unreasonable search, due process, or any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. :unsure:

And it's not like the Constitution is full of superfluous language. It's downright parsimonious.

So... If the need for a well-regulated militia was merely a "sufficient" reason to prevent the federal government from excessively regulating militias, then there would be no need whatsoever to include that language. And yet, there it is... and you can't explain why.

You can check the Militia Acts of 1792 if you wish, but you're not going to find anything different.
What am I supposed to look for? They were only temporary acts, whose authority only lasted 2 years. It doesn't say the President can disarm or disband state militias. Neither one defines militias, beyond saying that "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" ages 18-45 are in one.

Are you suggesting that when a sheriff called up his posse of local citizens to chase down an escaped slave that that body of men was a militia as defined by federal or state constitutions?
I'm saying that you don't understand slave patrols.

They weren't ad hoc groups that were summoned at a moment's notice by the sheriff. They were organized proto-police forces that operated on a regular basis, and specialized in keeping slaves in line. In many cases, such as Virginia, slave patrols were... wait for it... militias ordered to patrol by the local or state government. And again, there were so many of those white 18-45 year olds actively working in the slave patrols in South Carolina, that the state could barely contribute any militiamen to the American Revolution.

Would the right to self defense rest solely on the ability of a citizen's presence in a militia?
Catholics in England did not have the right to bear arms. Did that mean they also lacked the right of self-defense?

Today, French citizens do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. Does that mean they also lack the right of self-defense?

Anyway. The "defense" they were referring to in those amendments was defending the people and the state, not the individual -- unless you believe that militias were also law enforcement officers. (Hint: They weren't.)

Why did Breyer and Stevens ignore prior cases?
lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."
 
Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.


Incorrect. The Constitution never defines the term "militia."

By the way, the Colorado Constitution wasn't ratified until 1876. I'm not sure when Article XVII was ratified, it could have been even later.


...and yet again, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear they can't disarm them. Unless you believe that a militia that is ordered to surrender all its weapons is an example of a "well-regulated militia." :unsure:


Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.


sigh... Why did I expect you to actually answer the question?

Yet again: If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms, it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And... that is not how it is written.

No "sufficient" conditions were mentioned to justify freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protections from unreasonable search, due process, or any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. :unsure:

And it's not like the Constitution is full of superfluous language. It's downright parsimonious.

So... If the need for a well-regulated militia was merely a "sufficient" reason to prevent the federal government from excessively regulating militias, then there would be no need whatsoever to include that language. And yet, there it is... and you can't explain why.


What am I supposed to look for? They were only temporary acts, whose authority only lasted 2 years. It doesn't say the President can disarm or disband state militias. Neither one defines militias, beyond saying that "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" ages 18-45 are in one.


I'm saying that you don't understand slave patrols.

They weren't ad hoc groups that were summoned at a moment's notice by the sheriff. They were organized proto-police forces that operated on a regular basis, and specialized in keeping slaves in line. In many cases, such as Virginia, slave patrols were... wait for it... militias ordered to patrol by the local or state government. And again, there were so many of those white 18-45 year olds actively working in the slave patrols in South Carolina, that the state could barely contribute any militiamen to the American Revolution.


Catholics in England did not have the right to bear arms. Did that mean they also lacked the right of self-defense?

Today, French citizens do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. Does that mean they also lack the right of self-defense?

Anyway. The "defense" they were referring to in those amendments was defending the people and the state, not the individual -- unless you believe that militias were also law enforcement officers. (Hint: They weren't.)


lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."
Oh good lord.
So your argument is essentially.. there was a bill of rights. that enumerated individual rights. EXCEPT for the second. They just stuck it in there to make sure they could hunt down slaves because the founders envisaged a time when slave posses wouldn't be allowed???
 
Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.
Pot, kettle.
Incorrect. The Constitution never defines the term "militia."
No, but it empowered Congress to do so. At the federal level, only Congress can define "militia". They've done so multiple. That's a Constitutional power in play.

By the way, the Colorado Constitution wasn't ratified until 1876. I'm not sure when Article XVII was ratified, it could have been even later.
I use Colorado as an example because I live here. We could use other states if you wish.
...and yet again, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear they can't disarm them. Unless you believe that a militia that is ordered to surrender all its weapons is an example of a "well-regulated militia." :unsure:
"Well regulated" means whatever Congress says it means, as per the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. If Congress defines the "well regulated" militia as two blond six footers from every state dress in Viking garb and bearing only axes and swords, that's what the "well regulated" militia is. No one else has any say in the matter.
Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.
If Congress decides that the arms of the militia are limited to swords, that's what they get. Are you claiming that the president can't call the militia into federal service and issue orders to stack arms?
sigh... Why did I expect you to actually answer the question?

Yet again: If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms, it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And... that is not how it is written.
That's your opinion. That's not the opinion of a lot of well educated and researched experts.

I'm saying that you don't understand slave patrols


They weren't ad hoc groups that were summoned at a moment's notice by the sheriff. They were organized proto-police forces that operated on a regular basis, and specialized in keeping slaves in line. In many cases, such as Virginia, slave patrols were... wait for it... militias ordered to patrol by the local or state government. And again, there were so many of those white 18-45 year olds actively working in the slave patrols in South Carolina, that the state could barely contribute any militiamen to the American Revolution.

Were there any groups at any time who patrolled for slave who weren't organized by the federal government or the state? Did every group of people that patrolled for slaves actually belong to the militia, and only patrolled when summoned as a militia?
Catholics in England did not have the right to bear arms. Did that mean they also lacked the right of self-defense?

Today, French citizens do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. Does that mean they also lack the right of self-defense?
Are you claiming that American citizens have the right to self defense, just not with firearms?
 
Anyway. The "defense" they were referring to in those amendments was defending the people and the state, not the individual --

Like this: "Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property," How can this be misread as only protecting the people? The right to protect his person seems separated from "the people and the state".

Or this one: Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State.

Kansas: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use

unless you believe that militias were also law enforcement officers. (Hint: They weren't.)
The slave patrols were, evidently.

"Slave patrols were no less violent in their control of African Americans; they beat and terrorized as well. Their distinction was that they were legally compelled to do so by local authorities. In this sense, it was considered a civic duty—one that in some areas could result in a fine if avoided. In others, patrollers received financial compensation for their work. Typically, slave patrol routines included enforcing curfews, checking travelers for a permission pass, catching those assembling without permission, and preventing any form of organized resistance. As historian Sally Hadden writes in her book, Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas,

“The history of police work in the South grows out of this early fascination, by white patrollers, with what African American slaves were doing. Most law enforcement was, by definition, white patrolmen watching, catching, or beating black slaves.”[ii]"

 
Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.

lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."
"The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292, 24 S.Ct. 719, 723, 48 L.Ed. 979 (1904)

There is a distinctive lack of the word "militia" to be found in this decision which predates Heller by 28 years and the 1994 AWB by four years.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rene Martin VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ


One addendum: "Justice STEVENS, concurring in the judgment."


SCOTUS affirms that the People in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th are the same people protected by the 2nd. Are the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments only applicable to a "well-regulated militia"?
 
lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."
How does the Supreme Court case that first spoke to the 2nd Amendment and the right to arms, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), fit into your position?

Cruikshank recognizes the right of two Freemen, former slaves then citizens, to possess and carry arms for self defense, in public, from white oppressors in a state and at a time that the state had no militia (it being disbanded by the governor, on the orders of Congress).

Cruikshank shows without any possible dispute that SCOTUS recognizes the 2nd Amendment securing an individual right, independent of any militia association.

This must be so, these were two black men who, even if Louisiana had a militia, they could not enroll (see Militia Act of 1792).
 
I don't really agree. I've encountered a lot of gun owners who are racists, but I haven't noticed a provable connection. I'd guess just as many racists around my area don't own guns.

Here's what I've seen. There's a serious hobby thing to it and a look at me I'm a badass thing. Some of them also believe that they can take on the government with their hobby guns if they have to. In reality, the government could eliminate entire states with the press of a button now. The length of a new civil war pretty much depends on how much restraint the government uses, but the outcome is already determined. Meanwhile, their media tells them that the bullshit in their lives is because of government and poor people when it's really mostly caused by their employers and the rich people above them treating them like disposable robots until they can get actual robots. And sure, there's an important self defense aspect, too, but if someone comes in your house, you go for the hand gun, not the AR. Well, maybe you would, but I wouldn't.

And that's all, folks.
 
And sure, there's an important self defense aspect, too, but if someone comes in your house, you go for the hand gun, not the AR. Well, maybe you would, but I wouldn't.
You just need the right AR
 
You just need the right AR
I'm not sure which model ours is. It's in a safe, and I only fired it a few times with my father in law. It was fun, but I wouldn't choose it as a go to for home defense.
 
I'm not sure which model ours is. It's in a safe, and I only fired it a few times with my father in law. It was fun, but I wouldn't choose it as a go to for home defense.
For me, an AR for home defense is a fairly specialized firearm with specific design features: SBR, suppressed, .300 Blackout.
 
Repetition is not an argument -- especially when you don't actually understand what you're repeating.


Incorrect. The Constitution never defines the term "militia."

By the way, the Colorado Constitution wasn't ratified until 1876. I'm not sure when Article XVII was ratified, it could have been even later.


...and yet again, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear they can't disarm them. Unless you believe that a militia that is ordered to surrender all its weapons is an example of a "well-regulated militia." :unsure:


Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.


sigh... Why did I expect you to actually answer the question?

Yet again: If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms, it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And... that is not how it is written.

No "sufficient" conditions were mentioned to justify freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protections from unreasonable search, due process, or any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. :unsure:

And it's not like the Constitution is full of superfluous language. It's downright parsimonious.

So... If the need for a well-regulated militia was merely a "sufficient" reason to prevent the federal government from excessively regulating militias, then there would be no need whatsoever to include that language. And yet, there it is... and you can't explain why.


What am I supposed to look for? They were only temporary acts, whose authority only lasted 2 years. It doesn't say the President can disarm or disband state militias. Neither one defines militias, beyond saying that "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" ages 18-45 are in one.


I'm saying that you don't understand slave patrols.

They weren't ad hoc groups that were summoned at a moment's notice by the sheriff. They were organized proto-police forces that operated on a regular basis, and specialized in keeping slaves in line. In many cases, such as Virginia, slave patrols were... wait for it... militias ordered to patrol by the local or state government. And again, there were so many of those white 18-45 year olds actively working in the slave patrols in South Carolina, that the state could barely contribute any militiamen to the American Revolution.


Catholics in England did not have the right to bear arms. Did that mean they also lacked the right of self-defense?

Today, French citizens do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms. Does that mean they also lack the right of self-defense?

Anyway. The "defense" they were referring to in those amendments was defending the people and the state, not the individual -- unless you believe that militias were also law enforcement officers. (Hint: They weren't.)


lol... They didn't. It was Scalia who distorted the meaning and rulings of earlier cases, in order to fit his square peg of "individual rights" into the round hole of "we need well-regulated militias."
wrong again. In the Cruikshank decision, the court noted that the right guaranteed in the second is not dependent upon the constitution. what right was that?
 
For me, an AR for home defense is a fairly specialized firearm with specific design features: SBR, suppressed, .300 Blackout.
10mm AR pistol. 10.5" barrel.
 
Incorrect. The Constitution never says that the federal government can disarm militias. It says that Congress has the power to arm militias, not to disband or disarm them. Try reading the Constitution one of these days.
The power to specify and/or provide arms for the militia inclides the power to sepcify and/or provide NO arms for the militia.
 


Finally someone states the obvious....gun clutchers are motivated by fear of people of color. Same today as it was when our slave-owning founding fathers wrote the "kawnstitution".

You can tell that to Harriet Tubman.
1627491097529.png
 
Back
Top Bottom