Not that any 233-yr-old software couldn't use an upgrade
But 2nd Amendment clearly reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary [for] a free State, the right of the ppl to bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
It's "Well-regulated." (Not to mention "militia")
Not "any jackass"
17
54
205
Replies
@MaryL29433423
For over 200 years of jurisprudence it applied to police and military only, until the 21st-century Heller decision by SCOTUS.
1
0
0
@GenericEric4
Look up "well-regulated" in any English-language dictionary. Does it mean "zero regulations?"
Now do "militia."
(Plus Mason wanted a militia to fight not the crown but the inevitable "slave uprisings." Maybe it needs a rethink?)
0
0
0
@Darinstrauss
That was the interpretation used for over 200 years of jurisprudence - applies to police and military only - until the Heller decision by SCOTUS. The personal right was foundational for Scalia and the Federal Society. It's that pesky comma.
0
0
1
@Darinstrauss
There is no individual right to bear arms in the constitution. NOWHERE are the words individual right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. That is a made-up narrative by the current right-wing SCOTUS.
Let that be a starting point for reform. Attack the Heller decision in the media.
0
1
2
@Darinstrauss
But the militia part stands on its own, it states the militia is necessary. Boom, done.
It then goes on to say that the people's right to keep and bear arms is untouchable by the gov't
0
0
0