11–20 of 56 posts
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
[flagged]
The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.
If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.
It’s quite simple.
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
You can't have a citizen's militia without an armed populace. If 'the people' don't have guns, you don't have a militia.
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
Read the second amendment: the constitutional right is about “A well regulated Militia”.
It’s about the right.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.
The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.
Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?
They also need to invalidate, with jail time for legislators and governors, all the flagrantly unconstitutional gun control laws in blue states. A constitutional right is a constitutional right.
uh-huh. what provision in the Constitution authorizes this, exactly?
is there anything in contemporaneous writings (Federalist Papers, for example) where someone advocated that a reasonable separation of powers would be "Article 3 judges should have the power to send legislators to jail as a side-effect of ruling that a law is unconstitutional"?
you can argue about the 2nd Amendment all you want, that's one of the oldest pastimes on the internet. but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign.
Looking at the first page, the circumstances surrounding the indictment are infuriating. I thought that search warrants had to be specific to avoid just that kind of fishing expedition. The initial warrant was for terrorism related charges, it seems they found no evidence of it. How come they can then turn around and go for other charges?
If a cop happens to see evidence of a crime, they don't need a warrant to arrest you for it nor for you to be charged for it. Unfortunate for this man, but he shouldn't have had drugs on him (he also had cocaine in addition to marijuana).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minnlrev/vol107/iss2/3/
This administration revoked an executive order from the previous administration ("EO 14074") providing for a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. And so, for the time being, citizens and journalists are left to collect, aggregate, and disseminate this information until the next administration takes office.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/31/2022-11...
https://bjs.ojp.gov/national-law-enforcement-accountability-...
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/01/26/police_miscondu...
Obligatory "Don't Talk To The Police"
Video: https://archive.org/details/youtube-d-7o9xYp7eE
Paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
HN Threads: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly? The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all. If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutio…
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".