lickin_starfish 1,480 Posted November 18, 2023 https://media.greatawakening.win/post/kJyiddkoq6F7.jpeg 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Engorgeous George 1,160 Posted April 15 On 5/27/2023 at 12:09 PM, dogcows said: This is certainly one interpretation, but not really supported by the text of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You have to stretch REALLY far to get to the interpretation you’re suggesting. Today’s SCOTUS interpretation doesn’t involve a militia, and it eschews any notion of anything being well-regulated, As I said before, the plainly stated purpose of the amendment is served by our military and police today. Which leaves the 2nd clause as a vestige. The court has decided to leave that vestige intact and create new and unsupported (at least by the plain text) reasons for keeping it intact. Because if they admit the reality, that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, then they can no longer justify the right to keep and bear arms. Our founders overthrew the legitimate government. They wanted the people to retain the right and power to do so. They wanted government to respect if not fear the power retained by the people. They thought that respect would restrain tyranny. It was all about a peoples militia being able to effectively rise up and oppose the standing army and navy of the legitimate government. Is that insane in this day and age. Of course. Yet that is what it meant. If we find it insane we need to amend it, not ignore it or try to interpret it away, but amend it. Anything less or more clearly ignores the constitution. BTW, The founders did not only authorize individual arms. The authoirzed private ship of war. They authorized marques of reprisal essentially allowing privatge ship captains to capture ship of war. To do so those privater ships had to also have cannon and fighting men. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Engorgeous George 1,160 Posted April 15 Colorado House Bill 24-1292 seeks to ban more or less all semiautomatic rifles, many semi-automatic handguns, but does not yet touch shotguns. The ban is for new purchases or for transfers of existing weapons. If I can't transfer my existing weapons it seems to me there has been a partial taking of their value Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 2,513 Posted April 15 49 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said: Colorado House Bill 24-1292 seeks to ban more or less all semiautomatic rifles, many semi-automatic handguns, but does not yet touch shotguns. The ban is for new purchases or for transfers of existing weapons. If I can't transfer my existing weapons it seems to me there has been a partial taking of their value It's unconstitutional. Not even debatable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
