The Supreme Court just proved that its gun rulings have been a disaster
The Supreme Court just proved that its gun rulings have been a disaster
The justices double-down on the laws of the 18th century.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.
News to me, I've not seen anything on them arguing with each other. Just a ton of anti-2a groups and media calling the ruling horrific... though I will say that this scotus is not 2A friendly so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually are doing so. I'd love to read about it if you have a source.
Literally from Adams
Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies
Yea, remove the arms from those who do not support the cause to fight the British...no where in there did he say to disarm those who support the new nation. They literally were fighting for independence.
Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That's not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was "no big deal". That section starts off:
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?
and continues
Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.
The "few lives lost in a century or two" he's talking about are those of the people rebelling.
And finishes with the exact line I provided you in my previous comment:
And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
To assume Jefferson was speaking of disarming the people and telling them they're traitors is incorrect.
I don't know how much you think that paper supports your argument, but the "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Is a motto that a lot of 2A supports use. It's literally the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.
SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.
If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.
SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.
They're not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?
If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.
Nothing I've posted has been taken out of context. It's very very clear what both of those letters meant.
Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?
In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.
Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.
In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.
So you don't, just say that. We're not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don't need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still "vote" on a ruling. They don't all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling...
Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.
No it's not, you're literally trying to make it something its not. You're assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.