An Oklahoma man has been charged with manslaughter after authorities say he fatally shot his neighbor during target practice with a gun he’d purchased for himself as a Christmas gift.
They try to have it both ways, they say that the phrase “well regulated” should be interpreted using a 1700s interpretation, so they say that “well regulated” actually doesn’t refer to regulations, it refers to the militia being “in good working order”. Nevermind that if your “militia” is shooting up schools, it’s probably not “in good working order”.
Then, they want the term “arms” to be interpreted using a modern interpretation, and they want the term “arms” to apply to weapons that can be used to kill or maim entire crowds of people, instead of the single-shot in-accurate muskets that were available at the time.
I, like most Americans, support gun rights with sensible regulations such as background checks and training requirements. It’s also clear to me that this sentence written in the 1700s (the 2a) is being used as a thought-terminating cliche where they think they can just shout “2nd amendment” as if that’s a mic drop and just walk away instead of actually justifying their viewpoint. It doesn’t even come close to covering the complex modern realities.
If these 2nd amendment absolutists really want to take their inconsistent interpretation to it’s logical conclusion, they’re saying that Elon Musk should be able to build ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads and the government can’t infringe on that right.
Clearly he has the means to do so, and if the 2nd amendment means what they say it means then the constitution protects his right to do so.
I’m still waiting on the militia to be “well regulated” like the law says.
Every time someone suggests a shred of safety regulations, the 2A people all scream bloody murder.
I’m still waiting on the “militia” at all. This guy wasn’t a member of shit.
They try to have it both ways, they say that the phrase “well regulated” should be interpreted using a 1700s interpretation, so they say that “well regulated” actually doesn’t refer to regulations, it refers to the militia being “in good working order”. Nevermind that if your “militia” is shooting up schools, it’s probably not “in good working order”.
Then, they want the term “arms” to be interpreted using a modern interpretation, and they want the term “arms” to apply to weapons that can be used to kill or maim entire crowds of people, instead of the single-shot in-accurate muskets that were available at the time.
I, like most Americans, support gun rights with sensible regulations such as background checks and training requirements. It’s also clear to me that this sentence written in the 1700s (the 2a) is being used as a thought-terminating cliche where they think they can just shout “2nd amendment” as if that’s a mic drop and just walk away instead of actually justifying their viewpoint. It doesn’t even come close to covering the complex modern realities.
If these 2nd amendment absolutists really want to take their inconsistent interpretation to it’s logical conclusion, they’re saying that Elon Musk should be able to build ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads and the government can’t infringe on that right.
Clearly he has the means to do so, and if the 2nd amendment means what they say it means then the constitution protects his right to do so.
No screaming here, just curious which rights a random person on the internet thinks we deserve vs have to earn. The stakes here couldn’t be lower.