Sikness23245
Elite

US Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to open carry guns in public
On Wednesday, an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not
Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.“The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”
Wow. The 2nd ammendment isn't about protecting your home or business. Straw man arguments from our federal appeals courts now, I guess. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what this country has become.
Yeah, they could, and would, interpret "the Right of the people to bear arms" to mean the collective people, not individual citizens. Even though it is insanely clear from their writings what the founders meant.Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.
Nothing in 2A says anything about private citizens keeping or bearing arms unfortunately.
Yup.Yeah, they could, and would, interpret "the Right of the people to bear arms" to mean the collective people, not individual citizens. Even though it is insanely clear from their writings what the founders meant.![]()
Yup.
They would say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms to keep the state free from insurrectionists.
“The people” aren’t private citizens? I mean, dude. FYI, the SCOTUS has expressly ruled that the 2d Amendment does in fact grant an individual private citizen a right to keep and bear arms, and the majority rejected the argument you made about a militia. If Dems get a majority, they would likely rule as you say, despite that such a ruling would be contrary to the plain language of the amendment and not supportable.Wait until the courts rule that as long as a state has a national guard unit or state guard then the 2A is fulfilled.
Nothing in 2A says anything about private citizens keeping or bearing arms unfortunately.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Interpretations change.“The people” aren’t private citizens? I mean, dude. FYI, the SCOTUS has expressly ruled that the 2d Amendment does in fact grant an individual private citizen a right to keep and bear arms, and the majority rejected the argument you made about a militia. If Dems get a majority, they would likely rule as you say, despite that such a ruling would be contrary to the plain language of the amendment and not supportable.
Conceal, don’t feel!If you conceal well, no one will know.
Interpretations change.
The "plain language" doesn't say anything about private citizens tho.
Militia doesn't mean private citizens either. They are an organized part of the military.
Definition of militia
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
![]()
Definition of MILITIA
a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency; a body of citizens organized for military service; the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
To a sensible person and court; yes.Not to be a hole, but is this the same definition of the word as it was when the 2A was being drafted? We know definitions change over time, wouldn't applying their version of the word be appropriate?
Truly curious.
Not to be a hole, but is this the same definition of the word as it was when the 2A was being drafted? We know definitions change over time, wouldn't applying their version of the word be appropriate?
Truly curious.
Yup and it's a 'living document' so no need to even bother with what they meant; only the now matters (in some people's minds).Well regulated meant something very different back then. Unfortunately today, most people think that has something to do with regulations(restrictions) on gun ownership.
Yup and it's a 'living document' so no need to even bother with what they meant; only the now matters (in some people's minds).
Let it goooooooooooooConceal, don’t feel!
What are you talking about? It says ”the right of THE PEOPLE . . . “ The people ARE private citizens. Therefore, it says quite a lot about private citizens. Namely, that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Interpretations change.
The "plain language" doesn't say anything about private citizens tho.
Militia doesn't mean private citizens either. They are an organized part of the military.
Definition of militia
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
![]()
Definition of MILITIA
a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency; a body of citizens organized for military service; the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com