RE: Common Sense on Guns

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Common Sense on Guns

in guns •  7 years ago  (edited)

Yeah, I responded to that ridiculous sentiment there. Let's address the other one.

First, the militia clause isn't a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The milita is necessary for a free state SO the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You're vaguely correct that the purpose was to avoid a standing army. However, you are grossly mistaken about the purpose of the Constitution in general if you think it allows state militia formation. The National Guard is a state entity that can be called to federal service, which is actually a separate organization than the State National Guards.

The National Guard is also separate, legally, by federal code, from the unorganized militia which consists of every male aged between17 and 45.

There is no such thing as a militia requirement to keep and bear arms. Per SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, protected but not granted by the Constitution, and applies to the states just as it does to the federal government. Heller, Cruikshank, and McDonald.

And you're still ignoring taxing a Constitutional right. Apply your idea to the first amendment. Legal? Not a chance in hell.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Okay, whatever...
Back to the point, SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does allow for everything I have proposed.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court%3famp

Gun control, per the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution, so long as gun control doesn't take the form of outright banning firearms.

I'll just point out that when your argument has to be "who cares" and "whatever," you might wanna reassess your original ideas. "Reasonable restrictions" are as minimal as possible.

Full on literal taxation of a fundamental, Constitutional right is neither minimal nor reasonable. You have no idea of the reach and ramifications of your proposals, let alone anything beyond a vague knowledge of the second amendment or any knowledge whatsoever of Constitutional authority.

Also, that article is an opinion piece by someone with a very obvious agenda that is attempting to boil an intricate and complicated issue to "the NRA sucks."

There is no expert opinion there, just someone that really really wants gun control.