Post

the thing that makes me want to run my head into the wall when talking to 2nd amendment fuckwits is that "well regulated" is PART OF THE GOD DAMNED AMENDMENT TEXT

It's not even hidden in the back! Put that right up front, words two and three! You get the well regulated part before you even get to the bang bang bits!

I know you know this, but n Heller, Scalia said that was "prefatory," so it didn't really matter. He literally argued the 2A is the only amendment with a "preface" and that preface is not only irrelevant but also misleading. He also claimed that "militia" meant "everyone." Originalism!

Scalia is exactly where he should be and sometimes I stomp on the ground just to make sure he hears me.

How ya doing down there, fellas?

Every part of the Constitution was written to be concise, every word that stayed means a lot! That was binding language not fluff... but what is Originalism if not deciding the desired outcome first and warping everything until you get to it.

These types love pretending they love the text until presented with the text then suddenly it’s all vibes (they’re def the same way about the Bible)

We keep having to treat the English language like it's some form of a lost, antiquarian Sumerian dialect we're piecing back together from a marginal codex in yet another mostly lost language, but no, we literally have a whole body of knowledge about all of it and 'Originalists' don't want to use it.

Any true "originalist" reading of the text would lead people to conclude it's about as irrelevant as the Third Amendment, which I don't think has been invoked in around 200 years, maybe around the same time that conscripts had to supply their own weapons to join the militia.

What the hell do sawed-off shotguns have to do with a well-regulated militia? -- a unanimous court, 85 years ago, pretty much bedrock precedent until recent reactionary courts.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)supreme.justia.com United States v. Miller: Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

Fun fact: I knew an attorney in San Fran who brought a 3rd Amd claim after the FBI occupied a person's apartment during a hostage stand-off in the 1980s. (But point taken ✌️)

Whenever someone trots out "original intent," recall Madison's proposed 2nd Amd read: …a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country….¹ but the Founders decided to take out "well armed" and keep "well regulated." Could have kept both. Didn't.

¹ Gales, Debates & Prodeedings in the Congress, Vol 1 (Gales & Seaton, 1834) at 451.

Those words get in the way of the money-making part.

Every damn time.

Tell 'em to go CMD-F it /see what I did there?

Something something “I’m a well-regulated militia” something something

WHICH DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU HOPLOPHOBES THINK IT DOES. Never did. Language changes, as everyone who uses “gay” or “queer” instead of “sodomite” should be able to understand. And at the time that the amendment was written, “well-regulated” meant “properly functioning,” not “overlegislated.”

Concur. This is always the most infuriating part of the conversation. As best as I can understand, this phrase does not mean what a reasonable reading of the text actually means. We think it means that people with firearms are regulated. They seem not to. And have never made a convincing argument.

How they hear the 2nd amendment: "La la la la la la la la la la!!!"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please don't get me wrong, I hate the NRA and today's decision is idiotic. But "well-regulated" did not mean, "Applying regulations to." Well-regulated meant practiced or having the characteristics of a professional organization.