The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to a federal ban on gun "bump stocks" in a case that could affect thousands of gun-owning Americans.
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.
That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.
We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
I recommend you read the thread if you are confused about the discussion.
We weren’t discussing a political process. We were discussing your headcannon of the 2nd amendment and how it aligns perfectly with the stance of a violent fascist.
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=facpubs#:~:text=So%252C%2520the%25202nd%2520Amendment’s%2520second,the%2520one%2520after%2520“Arms%252C”
Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
That’s why I’ve always found this a nuanced discussion.
I’ve always interpreted as the people have the right to keep military style weapons to form a militia. That’s based on the miller case.
The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.
You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.
The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.
Irony is dead.
That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.
We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.
Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.
You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.
What are you rambling about? You are making no sense.
Can you be more clear what thoughts you are referencing ?
I outlined the government process.
And what violence am I advocating ? I have advocated for no violence.
I recommend you read the thread if you are confused about the discussion.
We weren’t discussing a political process. We were discussing your headcannon of the 2nd amendment and how it aligns perfectly with the stance of a violent fascist.
The law is now violent fascist? lol. You’re making no sense.
Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.
You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.
Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.
I’m fine with the heller decision. Are you ?
You’re fine with the next court updating these decisions, too, right?
What a desperate attempt to leap from topic to topic to hide from the truth of what you advocated for.
Sad.
Of course, I am. That is their job.
Cool.