• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Here’s the lovely thing: I don’t need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don’t need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don’t have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh so now you’re just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        “Well regulated” is understood to mean “trained”.

        This is a settled question; 2a rights are individual rights, not hinging on whether or not I’m in a militia. They’ve been understood to be both an individual right and responsibility for nearly 250 years, despite attempts by fraudulent scholars to claim otherwise.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No. It’s literally from the Latin for rules. The word has never not meant to have rules and regulation.

          The idea of a well regulated watch or other gadget, is actually later.

          I know you’ve probably been told this myth your entire life but it’s just not true. And why it took the court 175 years to define the militia as every able bodied person.

          The founders were very aware of the dangers of letting people run around with guns and no regulations. That’s why the first sentence is there and why there were laws about guns in town for 300 years before the Bruen decision decided to ignore history while claiming to be historically accurate.