The Bill Of Rights is made up of two different clause types, declaratory and restrictive.
Declaratory: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Restrictive: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In the declaratory clause they are stating the reasoning for the amendment, the founders did not trust standing armies but understood that it was necessary because a militia can't keep the level of proficiency that a standing army can.
Mar 27, 2023 • 17 tweets • 5 min read
Anyone that is not willing to learn can't be convinced of anything.
For instance, he brings up the 1792 militia act. Which is the federal government exercising its power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 to "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
This is a militia act, it has nothing to do with the second amendment. He says the 2A is tied to service in a militia, according to the Dred Scott v Sandford this is incorrect. In this case, they refused to acknowledge black people born to slaves in the United States
Mar 24, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
The federal government was only given control of those called into service, while the founders were extremely distrustful of standing armies they came to understand their importance during the revolution.
A standing army is telling another country if you come fuck with us we are ready to kill you. A militia can't project that kind of statement. A militia also can't keep the level of training required as a whole group to wage a war, they have to live their everyday life.
Feb 8, 2023 • 19 tweets • 19 min read
@TySimone4@tejasazteca@ScalzisWar@soloer101 The federalist papers were written to argue for the ratification of the constitution, in this case, F46 is speaking towards Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12, the funding of a standing army, and the fact that it would not be able to match a militia raised by the states.
@TySimone4@tejasazteca@ScalzisWar@soloer101 The constitution was not ratified until June 21, 1788, During the ratification, the states sent back, along with the ratification, a list of things they wished to be added to it as a bill of rights,
Feb 1, 2023 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
Mr. BINGHAM:
It is the power of the people, the whole people of the United States, by express authority of the Constitution to do that by congressional enactment which hitherto they have not had the power to do, and have never even attempted to do; that is, to protect by
national law the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction whenever the same shall be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that
Jan 15, 2023 • 24 tweets • 7 min read
This a Thread for reference for #2ndAmendment, proof that first, the bill of rights are restrictions on the government, and second that every person has the right to arm themselves with the most effective weapons.
First, the lie that the NRA propagates the “false” belief that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual the right to a gun and that, before District of Columbia v. Heller, the court never ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.
Dec 24, 2022 • 12 tweets • 10 min read
@heathroi@2Aupdates@MorosKostas Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in
@heathroi@2Aupdates@MorosKostas the first eight amendments to the constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:
Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):
Dec 21, 2022 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Wanted them to? No of course not, they had just established the country. The only job of the second amendment is to place limitations on the power of the government.
They did not want the federal government to be able to disarm the people.
The British tried to disarm the people, and were some what succeeded in doing so, they even tared and feathered a man after “selling him a musket”.
The federalist didn’t even think that a bill of rights was necessary, as they were only granting certain powers to the government.
Dec 20, 2022 • 21 tweets • 13 min read
@thecat854@GiffordsCourage Of course, is not LEGAL to take up arms, if it comes to that point then the constitution has failed. It was not legal for the founders to take up arms against Britain, it was treason, however, as stated in the declaration of independence,
1/x@thecat854@GiffordsCourage That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
2/x
Nov 12, 2022 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
So hypothetically, we can all go build SBRs and other NFA items and, when charged, use the decision to Bruen dismantle it all along with cruikshank
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
@BeccaLynn412@LegalLatino2022@Princess0fH_ll The issue is the same result can be achieved with any weapon. Be it pistols, shotguns, ar-15 style, or bolt actions. The issue is nothing to do with the gun itself. It's the time it takes for them to meet armed resistance, 1/x@BeccaLynn412@LegalLatino2022@Princess0fH_ll It took 15 seconds for the Indiana mall shooter to be stopped. In that time three people lost their lives, if that person had not chosen to ignore mall policy more would have died.2/x
Aug 2, 2022 • 22 tweets • 17 min read
@JimTheWhyGuy@StatesRe@SenDuckworth That's fine to disagree, and I will disagree with that. First “plain modern English” You have realigned the writing so that it is tied to service in a “well-organized fighting force”.
@JimTheWhyGuy@StatesRe@SenDuckworth If the founders had intended to tie the right to bear arms to the militia they could have easily done so
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those enrolled in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Jul 31, 2022 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
@ODCSResister Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded;
@ODCSResister it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army
Jun 25, 2022 • 6 tweets • 5 min read
@OfficialJRat12@Pybro29233758@EmilieTueting It gives their reasoning behind the action they are taking. Like the beginning of the constitution establishes why they are creating it. The operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
@OfficialJRat12@Pybro29233758@EmilieTueting While the prefatory clause is the introduction or reasoning for that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" The people make up the militia and were expected when called on, to provide their own weapon and ammo and be able to work together.
