334
Inconceivable
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
334 points (95.9% liked)
2 North American 4 You
280 readers
353 users here now
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
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?
Just someone who doesn't even live in your country but apparently knows more about your constitution than you do.
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?