Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Alan Siefert | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Problem is it won’t be a radical change by the time it arrives. It will be at a time when Americans are used to needing a permit to have a bolt-action hunting rifle and a revolver for self-defense.
▲ ▼
Low Information Voter | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Very true. 

Your Second Amendment is beautifully simple and plainly worded (in 1700s English), but people just flatly pretend not to understand...
▲ ▼
Alan Siefert | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Everyone understands what it’s actually intended for. Many, including progressive federal judges, pretend to understand it in a way that it’s effectively nullified, I.e. “it’s only for state militias, which of course must follow federal orders according to the Supremacy Clause.” So essentially that it gives the government the right to have guns, which makes no sense as an item in the Bill of Rights. 😂
▲ ▼
Low Information Voter | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Ridiculous. They have no trouble understanding "gay" has shifted in meaning since the 1700s, but play dumb about "regulated" (disiplined) and "militia" (freeborn adult males).

That said, better than our courts here. Our Section 92 forbids restricting "commerce" between the states. Its not much of a right, but its something. COVID border closures were challenged on s92 grounds, but apparently "emergency" abrogates our Constitution...
▲ ▼
Alan Siefert | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Check out the dissenting opinion in the Heller case if you’re interested. Pretty wild that just less than half the justices joined in the “it protects the government’s guns, not yours” opinion.
▲ ▼
Low Information Voter | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Yup. Miller is even crazier