🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@jaysonmassey No one said anything about slaves.. I said black people, yes slaves makes it more complicated, and in that regard many of the founding fathers were against slavery, and there are many quotes on that too. Not claiming they are perfect but the point is a good many of the founding fathers and authors have been quotes as saying (in one phrasing or another) 1) All people included minorities 2) Slavery is wrong and as such All people is intended to include even slaves (though in practice it did not of course and took an amendment to make sure it did)

@jaysonmassey No, the SCOTUS can not just make up any arbitrary vote they want.. .there is an expectation (though this may not be honored, and if not they may be impeached) that they will try to honor the law as it is written. They dont get to just makeup any meaning they want.. i mean yea they **could** but that would be a gross violation of their oath and expectations.

@jaysonmassey You asked if the founding fathers intended all the people in the 2A to include people with limited rights from the era like black people, women, etc... I am saying what comments we have from the authors to that effect they clearly wanted it to include everyone, yes. We arent talking about the 13th amendment, that came after them.

@pj

If you ever find or make a society where I am better protected from rape, murder, and violent acts without a gun than with a gun then i will be the first to join you there... For now that does not and never has existed.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@jaysonmassey YEs, but for the SCOTUS to act in good faith they must be trying their best to interprit the words as they are clearly written to mean, and only deviate when the words arent explicit... shall not infringe is pretty explicit.

@jaysonmassey

Every founding father I ever found to directly quote who is "all people", and if it included blacks or slaves, if they addressed it they said they were against slavery and when they said all people they meant all people. Of course, many states didnt follow that intention and slavery was a horrific problem. But that is an example of how forward thinking the authors were IMO.

@jaysonmassey

> The press is not 'well-regulated'. Actually, ANYONE, including us, COULD be in the press.

Funnily enough if you want to go that angle one of our founding fathers who was there when it was written addressed exactly this in 1788:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

> The other big issue is that generally, the Constitution is a 'living' document. It should change as needed

Absolutely. Write a new amendment and at least its not a dishonest tactic and well within the intention. But this is not what people do, and for now until that happens, these laws are unconstitutional.

@KeithC

The drfinition of infringe is "To act so as to limit".

If you are placing limits on my right to bear arms, by a law that exludes guns, then by definition you are infringing. So outside of limitations placed elsewhere in the constitution itself tpany state law to limit what guns one can bear is unconstitutional

@jaysonmassey

@jaysonmassey

Think about if the first amendment was worded as:

A free press being necessary for the functioning of a country, the right to freedom of speak shall not be infringed

Essentially the same format.. if you read that would you or anyone objectively reading it be able to say "Ok thats saying only the press should have freedom of speech and no one else should have that right"... or that "that seems to suggest I can infringe on peoples freedom of speech as long as its not the press"

I doubt it, and frankly I suspect anyone reading the second amendment who isnt bias would probably agree with me.

@jaysonmassey Happy to

@jaysonmassey It means that it is mentioning the militia only as an **example** as to why we need gun rights, not as a **condition** on why we need it...

The wording is right there in the 2A ... "being necessary".. It gives an example as to one reason why it is neccesary, and states as much. Nothing in the wording is even suggestive of the fact that it should be a right limited to the militia.

Also very clearly explained in quotes from the founding fathers who wrote it.

@pj

> 1) Not if being part of a club, who is a member of the NRA means you are more protected than as an isolated individual.

right, you should be just as protected if you buy a gun and have no association to the NRA, both protection in terms of the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, as well as protected from having yoru gun taken

> 2) If you need to arm the victim to protect themselves from being raped by someone they have a restraining order on, that order and the agency that issued it is worth as much as the paper the order is written on.

When has a restraining order **ever** provided any protection of any kind against a person who chooses to rape you? the only thing a restraining order would do is make it easier to get the person arrested **after** the fact (since you only need to prove they were near you, not that they raped you)... But no restraining order in any country would do anything to physically prevent a person from raping you if they decided they were going to... so I dont follow your logic here.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@jaysonmassey I'd say the wording of the second amendment makes it very clear. It is pretty clear about the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".. its also very clear (and stated in countless direct quotes from the authors) that the "well regulated militia" is a exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause.

So, as far as i can tell, the current wording and history is so clear there isnt much need to make a case, or at least, there shouldnt be much need.

While I am often not very happy witht he GOP leaning SCOTUS on this one I really am glad to have a right-leaning supreme court.

Lets hope they do the right thing and knock down these and similar state-laws as unconstitutional and in violation of the #2A

@pj

No need to shut up.. Disagreeing and talking about this is healthy, even if no one changes their mind the exercise is healthy.

As long as you stay respectful, as you have, please feel free to keep brining up as many points as you want.

being in a gun club, taking gun training, and everything in that regard which you suggest is a good thing. I totally encourage people join gun clubs... where the analogy breaks down is when you suggest it be a legal requirement (rather than a strong suggestion) for gun ownership.

There are a few reqasons gun licensing or requiring clubs is problematic...

1) it means some entity can take away your rights if they feel you arent living up to their expectations, this has the potential to be abused, specifically if those clubs that have the power are decided on by the government

2) It can delay your access to a gun, and if you are in danger that may cost you your life. a good example of that would be someone with a restraining order who might be at risk of being raped. They cant wait

3) Unless done very carefully it would effectively act as a registery for who does and doesnt have guns. This can potentially be used by a corrupt government to track down and take away said guns should the government want to infringe on gun rights and become oppressive.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@alfredo_liberal you too

@L29Ah

I have no idea what this says but i am digging the russian alphabet version of QOTO

@rf @ru

@alfredo_liberal im having a great easter. Visiting thailand with my girlfriend.