Then they reinstituted it and General Washington was president at the time, they had a navy I believe. The states used to appoint senators back then too and they were not elected by property owning white men.
See my post above. Nobody is seriously talking about banning AR-15s, A few rational and sane changes can save lives. That's the objective. Reduce the harm guns are doing.
I don't buy that last line.
I remember.
where did you get that absurdity? I'm curious who is pushing that narrative and how they justify it.
Joe is as I recall, along with other reforms, whatever happens will be incremental until 24 and much will depend on the results of that election. Big majorities can lead to big changes and a mandate. If the republicans are divided by Trump and other issues along with a plethora of court cases, it can happen. If they lose just 10% of their base nationally it will be a disaster for them and the salvation of the nation.
Something I read on the topic long ago. If you have a historical reference saying otherwise, I’ll pay attention.
Historically speaking, the people who wrote the 2nd A spoke English, which is the same language I speak. The meaning of the words "well" and "regulated" have not changed. The courts sometimes has special meanings to words but they didn't even exist under the constitution until after the 2A was written.
A clock that kept good time was well-regulated, as was a gun with correctly-adjusted sights. I’m sorry it seems absurd to you, but I’m not the one abusing reason in this instance. Your hostility to the idea mystifies me, and at day’s end our opinions do not matter.
I think the ultimate question asked of the SCOTUS will be the definition of "arms" and the same freedom for guns would apply to artillery, rockets and bombs all in their modern incarnations. If open carry of an AR15 or any gun is the legal, then people should be able to be armed with swords too, since they were common arms at the time of the 2nds writing. Define arms according to the 17th century dictionary, consult Dr. Johnson I think.
My bottom-line argument is that 21st-century law should not be beholden to 18th-century semantics. That’s as failed a protocol as inerrant-Bible reasoning.
Your interpretation does not follow the context of the sentence in the 2A. Like a clock or a gunsight? "A well calibrated militia"? Even so, that interpretation does not mean unregulated.
Well, it is the kind of thing the SCOTUS deals with, and they do consult ancient law as Alito recently did and archaic definitions too, since the original intent of the founders is important to some of them, but milage may vary depending on the judge. Conservative judges tend to favor original intent, while more liberal ones consider the constitution a living document and intrepid it that way, considering the many social and political changes that have occurred since then including issues of social justice. Conservative justices like conservative Christians tend to be literal in their interpretation of their scriptures.
I don’t hold with the originalists. I certainly don’t hold with the idea that society then dictates to society now.
They were well regulated enough for Washington to vaccinate them, and if you thought the covid vaccine was unsafe!
It doesn't sound like the meaning has changed to me, but whatever.
YAWN...
Apparently you don't know what the process is. Not surprised.
