Zackey Rahimi, the Texas criminal defendant challenging a federal gun law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said this summer that he no longer wanted to own firearms and expressed remorse for his actions that got him in trouble with the law.
“I will make sure for sure this time that when I finish my time being incarcerated to stay the faithful, righteous person I am this day, to stay away from all drugs at all times, do probation & parole rightfully, to go to school & have a great career, have a great manufacturing engineering job, to never break any law again, to stay away from the wrong circle, to stay away from all firearms & weapons, & to never be away from my family again,” Rahimi, who is being held at a Fort Worth jail, said in a handwritten letter dated July 25.
He continued: “I had firearms for the right reason in our place to be able to protect my family at all times especially for what we’ve went through in the past but I’ll make sure to do whatever it takes to be able to do everything the right pathway & to be able to come home fast as I can to take care of my family at all times.”
No it doesnt
Yes. It. Does. Just because the common definition for militia changed doesn’t mean that the meaning of the writing with the definition of the time is different because you want it to be.
It wasnt the definition of the time either. It has always meant what it means today.
Even if that were true, it doesn’t matter because the militia is not the right. The right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I think there’s subtleties that you’re ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it’s important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn’t what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.
Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person’s 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It’s already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you’re arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you’re missing the point.
You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you’re willing to change when it doesn’t fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.
If someone is in custody they can have their rights Curtailed. As soon as they are free they should be able to exercise all of their rights once more. The only definition that matters is the right defined which is the right to bear arms and that hasn’t changed.
https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/
From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn’t whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:
There’s nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You’re arguing something that simply isn’t a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.
Shall not be infringed. Pretty god damn simple.
It’s literally not that simple, and at this point you’re not even reading what I’m saying. What you are claiming is not black and white even by your own sources. It speaks volumes about how much thought you’ve actually put into the subject. You’re far worse than the far left anti-2nd amendment folks in a lot of ways, and have roughly the same understanding of the subject as they do about it.
I hope one day you’ll learn nuance. Good day to you.
Almost like… It’s too simple… Like there should be updates…
Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term “regulars” comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?
Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims “well regulated” means “well armed” in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn’t find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.
It doesn’t really matter what it means because the right is the right of the people to keep and bare arms. The militia is merely the justification for that right. I’m not putting in the effort here because I don’t have to. It is extremely clear and simple.