[ SECRET POST #2218 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2218 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: How big are you on patriotism?

[(Anonymous)]

The interpretation of the second Amendment as it stands right now is, so far as I can understand, that the "militia" clause is merely a clause of intent, not one that in any way limits the right contained in the other part of the amendment. In other words, as far as I can understand, what the Supreme Court has said is this: the founders said that, for the purpose of keeping a militia(1), the right of the people to keep and bear arms could not be infringed; therefore, despite the fact that there are no militias, and that it would be impossible to have a militia in the way the founders envisioned, and that it would therefore be impossible for anyone to keep and bear arms in the way the founders envisioned, you still can't have any law which would unreasonably prevent the citizens from using them in this way. In other words, we can't make any laws that would stop the citizens from forming a militia, despite the fact that they can't possibly actually form a militia. This is a perfectly valid formal interpretation of the law, of course; the one problem with it is that, on a practical level of content and function, it doesn't make any fucking sense.

Saying that, however, all of this is somewhat besides the point, because even within this interpretation, there's still plenty we can legally do to reasonably restrict gun rights; the problem isn't the constitution, it's that a lot of this country is politically irrational and paranoid.

(1) - the reasons for the importance of the militia are also fascinating to look it, because they indicate just how outmoded the 2nd Amendment is (and I say that as someone who basically supports the personal right to keep weapons within reasonable limits) - the main reason is to prevent tyranny and provide for the common defense - specifically, to prevent tyranny by making it so that the US wouldn't have to rely on a standing army, which was widely seen at the time as an inherently corrupting and despotic thing to have. I mean, how far have we gone down that particular rabbit hole?