just for context, at the time it was written “a well regulated militia” meant all men old enough to fight that had their wits about them, regardless of their belonging to any organization including the military
When they wrote it, you were there so you understand the exact interpretation the founders intended?
no? you weren’t there? you’re not a 250 year old man?
so you’re speaking with the same conjecture the last 150+ years of jurists and scholars, which is, none really, whatsoever?
Yeah.
Please consider this - you have no expertise, no one does, and such expertise is immaterial because WE LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND FIREARMS HAVE CHANGES A LOT SINCE THEN.
So the opinions of the founders, while important, aren’t the decider.
Just like we didn’t decide NOT TO HAVE A FUCKING AIR FORCE because didn’t intend for it to happen.
I’m really tired of ‘originalist’ arguments that are idiotic and focused on one nuance or another of the document while throwing out the remainder.
Edit: When you fly off the handle making assumptions and parroting an unreal volume of completely unoriginal talking points, it does literally nothing other than embarrass yourself. You’re shitting all over your own argument by acting like a toddler with low blood sugar.
Edit 2: The fact that you throw this kind of tantrum when someone expresses sentiment that isn’t explicitly anti-gun on c/armedworkers is truly baffling. Do you go to c/barbecue to shriek about veganism?
It wasn’t an argument until you decided to make it one. We could have had an actual conversation with the possibility of views changing but no. When you come out the gate with derision and anger you ensure that I only become more deeply entrenched in my views. I’m actually quite open to changing my mind on things and I find joy in the realization that I have an opportunity to realign my perspective closer to the truth.
The only reason I bother to type any of this shit is because you clearly want a better world. I want a better world too. Take my advice and cut the histrionics next time. I promise you the result will be much closer to what you desire.
I’m not a big fan of guns, but I do love when marginalized people arm themselves
Same. It’s telling that Reagan supported Gun Control when it was the Black Panthers advising people to arm themselves. Even the NRA got in on the action.
Tell that to the 2a literalists who conveniently omit the entire opening - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
We do not have a well regulated militia. Weapons are used to terrorize the people of these free states. Fuck
hmm, so we can campaign for queer and black people arming themselves, and worst case scenario we get gun control?
why are we not doing this?
worth a try.
Because it’ll be gun control done in such a way that marginalized communities like lgbtq+ and bipoc will be the ones who can’t get guns.
just for context, at the time it was written “a well regulated militia” meant all men old enough to fight that had their wits about them, regardless of their belonging to any organization including the military
Oh you were there?
When they wrote it, you were there so you understand the exact interpretation the founders intended?
no? you weren’t there? you’re not a 250 year old man?
so you’re speaking with the same conjecture the last 150+ years of jurists and scholars, which is, none really, whatsoever?
Yeah.
Please consider this - you have no expertise, no one does, and such expertise is immaterial because WE LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND FIREARMS HAVE CHANGES A LOT SINCE THEN.
So the opinions of the founders, while important, aren’t the decider.
Just like we didn’t decide NOT TO HAVE A FUCKING AIR FORCE because didn’t intend for it to happen.
I’m really tired of ‘originalist’ arguments that are idiotic and focused on one nuance or another of the document while throwing out the remainder.
Simply relaying my understanding of our government’s interpretation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Edit: When you fly off the handle making assumptions and parroting an unreal volume of completely unoriginal talking points, it does literally nothing other than embarrass yourself. You’re shitting all over your own argument by acting like a toddler with low blood sugar.
Edit 2: The fact that you throw this kind of tantrum when someone expresses sentiment that isn’t explicitly anti-gun on c/armedworkers is truly baffling. Do you go to c/barbecue to shriek about veganism?
I go where the argument needs to. I’m sick of idiots replying as if they knew themselves when it’s a bullshit argument top to bottom.
It wasn’t an argument until you decided to make it one. We could have had an actual conversation with the possibility of views changing but no. When you come out the gate with derision and anger you ensure that I only become more deeply entrenched in my views. I’m actually quite open to changing my mind on things and I find joy in the realization that I have an opportunity to realign my perspective closer to the truth.
The only reason I bother to type any of this shit is because you clearly want a better world. I want a better world too. Take my advice and cut the histrionics next time. I promise you the result will be much closer to what you desire.
My views aren’t changing. You obviously don’t care how many people are murdered, so I kinda doubt your premise bud.
Take my advice and just wake up, I promise you the world would be better if you assholes opened your eyes.
I’m Jewish, I have a genuine need for self defense… not like it’s any of your business. Not like that qualifier is even necessary.
When there are forces actively organizing that want to hang you from a tree, you can bet your ass nothing matters before your own personal safety.
Marginalized people like literally anyone who might encounter the police in the US.
Yup!