• yeather@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        So why can’t the militia put an age floor in? What’s different about that rule as opposed to background checks?

        • yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we’re all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it’s just an unavoidable tragedy.

            Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn’t an honest conversation.

            • yeather@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                That’s not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody’s marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we’ve seen recently, “SCOTUS said” isn’t a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.

                It may be “the current ruling” but that doesn’t make it right.

                • yeather@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I’m a gun owner.

                    And I disagree with you.

                    If it was a big deal there would be a million man march in D.C. especially since these are federal rulings.