• OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately this argument is another can of worms with the hardliners, but it also highlights their hypocrisy.

      It goes something like this:

      Me, a moderate: “You always conveniently leave out the ‘well regulated’ part when you use the 2A as a shield that prevents all gun regulation”

      Hardliner: “Well actually the phrase ‘well-regulated’ meant something different at the time it was written, and it was not intended to refer to restrictions. Generally, well regulated meant “in good working order” so we interpret that as referring to the militia itself being functional, and not that restrictions would be placed on individual gun owners.”

      So now you can start to see the hypocrisy with these constitutional literalists, because they insist that the text should be strictly interpreted based on what it meant at the time… but at the time, the only “arms” were single shot muskets that weren’t accurate at all. So they are trying to burn the candle at both ends by at the same time applying a modern and historical interpretation of the text. Clearly the founders did not anticipate modern weapons.

      The whole idea that the 2A precludes ALL restrictions is bullshit. Should individuals be able to own nuclear warheads? Obviously not. I’m personally really tired of people who (instead of engaging in a rational argument about which restrictions are appropriate) just use the 2A as a shield so that they don’t have to justify their views.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, yeah, but as the court veers more conservative, that’s not going to change any time soon.

      Maybe once Thomas and Alito are gone, assuming that happens under a Democratic President and they don’t have their picks blockaded the way McConnell did to Merrick Garland.