359
Inconceivable (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/2northamerican4you@sh.itjust.works
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent