• PhoenixDog
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • PhoenixDog
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day 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?