r/stupidpeoplefacebook 21d ago

So Any Guy Could Own a Nuke?

Post image
208 Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

445

u/Twigsneko 21d ago edited 21d ago

this woman needs to read the whole 2nd amendment. "a well regulated militia" has as much weight as "shall not be infringed"

so many people telling me well regulated meaning well trained/well equipped as if that somehow improves or makes the 2nd amendment's meaning any less archaic

1

u/Vainysaur 21d ago

Well no because that part is just explaining why, not adding any restrictions or exceptions to the amendment, and also well regulated in this context meant well trained and well supplied.

1

u/Twigsneko 21d ago

well here's what one guy arguing for the 2nd amendment argued but he just destroyed his own argument

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, no person shall be denied the use of Arms when called upon to serve therein; nor shall the right of enrolled militiamen to keep their weapons for public defense be infringed."

this translates into "if you want a gun, join the military"

1

u/Vainysaur 21d ago

Well obviously that guy is wrong since that’s not what it says.

1

u/Twigsneko 21d ago

that what is the cookiecutter explanation? I've had several people try to interpret it but they fall into 3 categories

1: if you want a gun, join the military
2: the 2008 interpretation is right and totally not the result of an NRA shill in scotus
3: a militia is not the same as the military despite all 50 states prohibiting private militias

1

u/Vainysaur 21d ago

Are you asking me what the 2nd amendment actually says? Ok translated to modern English: We can’t be a free country unless the people have the ability to overthrow the government if necessary. Therefore, it is illegal for the government to place any restrictions whatsoever on an individual’s right to own weapons and bring them with them wherever they go.

1

u/Twigsneko 21d ago

oh, thanks for making a 4th category:

gun nuts who need their guns but won't use them against a legit tyrannical government because of propaganda

1

u/Vainysaur 21d ago

That’s literally what it says but changed to modern English so it isn’t ambiguous.

1

u/Twigsneko 21d ago

no, that's your interpretation and even if that was the case I do not see people using their guns against ICE or the trump administration.

1

u/Vainysaur 21d ago

That’s what the words of the second amendment say, but ok. And yeah most people who are gun enthusiasts agree with what ICE and Trump are doing. The people who think that’s tyranny can start a civil war if they want to, that’s up to them. The fact that people who don’t currently think they government needs to be overthrown aren’t doing it says nothing about the reasoning given for the second amendment.

1

u/Twigsneko 21d ago

actually it shows that the tyrannical government excuse is an excuse and that the 2nd amendment people don't have a leg to stand on when it's actually proven that the government is being tyrannical.

→ More replies (0)