Regurgitated talking head nonsense. Do you have an original thought at all in that diseased brain of yours?
Pretty sure it says "the people" as in the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say "the right of the militia "
You're not smart enough to understand that nothing I've said is in opposition to that. It's the "well-regulated" part that bothers you. Inasmuch as every state agreed to the Second Amendment they also agree as a condition of their membership that the country as a whole can decide what's "well-regulated", and there is no individual right of ownership mentioned in the Second Amendment that supercedes that. There is no right to an AR-15, for example, if the entire country decides that that's outside the bounds of "well-regulated." Gun nuts have argued that restrictions against assault weapons is in violation of a Second Amendment individual right to self-defense, when nothing of the sort was ever intended or even mentioned. Having said all that, it's not like I support the Second Amendment in the first place. It needs to be scrapped in favor of clear language that allows us to ban weapons that enable evil people to so easily kill so many of our children.
And you’re not smart enough to realize “the right of the people shall not be infringed”. But you knew that already. You’re just bothered by it because you live in a cute little bubble.
You have that already, and in part, its in the Heller decision you blame for the mess earlier in the thread, or in the other thread, I don't remember which. In Heller, SCOTUS states: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The second part of the statement is crucial. If your right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes is protected, it stands to reason that you cannot possess a firearm for unlawful purposes. Therefore, Uvalde shooter was in violation of 2A by using his gun for unlawful purposes. As far as the weapons ban you want, you have the means for that, too. US v Miller, 1939. I'm surprised you haven't quoted this one already, because it espouses the "collective rights approach" you're touting when you say "well-regulated" superceeds individual rights. The Court held in Miller that Congress could regulate sawed-off shotguns because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." So by that reasoning, you can petition that Congress regulate AR-15's, but you'll have to prove they would be useless in arming a citizen militia. Since your side has been arguing for years that the AR-15 is a military-grade weapon, good luck with that.
None of the blue checks have brought Miller into question, so he has to study up on what to reply with next.
