2NorthAmerican4You

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

And what are you doing as a well regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free state?

You owning a shotgun while sitting on your couch isn't well regulated, or security.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ah, this retarded argument again. With the exception of ignorant hippies, I've only ever seen that nonsense brought up as a reason to disarm black people. So which are you? Idiot or racist?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Just someone who doesn't even live in your country but apparently knows more about your constitution than you do.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

You obviously don't because you're interpreting it wrong.

Constitutional scholars interpret "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" as a prefatory clause, with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as the operating clause. The first is there to explain why the second is there, not to limit its scope.

You know the first time this whole militia crap came up? Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856. "But if we give negroes citizenship, that means they'll be allowed to have guns!" Which minority group do you personally want it to be safer for white men to systematically brutalize? Black people? Women? Gay people? Trans people? Jews? Muslims?