It’s not a natural right
If it was it won’t have to do anything with any well regulated militias
Founding fathers did pass some laws regulating guns
Many gun laws existed during their lifetime
None was struck down as unconstitutional
And they never complained about these laws
DanaLay @DanaLay68737614
Tweeted on April 16, 2022
[Someone needs to be fisked.
- SCOTUS disagrees. See U S v Cruikshank.
- Wrong. See above, United States v. Miller, and D.C. v. Heller.
- Citation needed. And it doesn’t count in DanaLay’s favor if they cite the laws requiring people to own guns and/or ammunition.
- Citation needed.
- There have been many gun laws struck down as unconstitutional although I’m not certain they were within the lifetime of the founders. This is particularly true if DanaLay is unable to cite laws restricting firearms during founders’ lifetime. See Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed for details.
- Citation needed. This is particularly true if DanaLay is unable to cite laws restricting firearms during the founders’ lifetime.
One has to assume such a large quantity of deliberate ignorance to arrive at such a statement that Occam’s Razor pushes us to conclude it is an evil lie rather than ignorance.—Joe]
Most definitely crap, Joe. But something forgotten is the fact that most of America was wild and rural. (Still is, but most of the wild parts are in cities.)
And couldn’t give a crap less what some black robed moron had to say.
Just as with today’s criminal class. Nobody truly cares for law. Especially those charged to care for it.
See Biden and crew upholding immigration law, anti-trust, or the constitution itself lately? Along with a 100 other things most people in government should spend the rest of their lives in prison over.?
The Nuremburg code would get half of them hung tomorrow.
And all of a sudden were all suppose to just kneel down to some letter of the law Dana and comrade commies made up?
Along with a pathetic appeal to history?
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” No matter which side you land on. It reads the same.
Sorry Dana, you ignorant slut. We don’t know nothing about no stink’in law.
And obvious to everyone but you, you don’t either.
My new pronoun is, BFYTW.
Let’s not call it “deliberate ignorance” then. Let’s call it as it is; a pack of lies. To let them off the hook with the ignorance defense is to participate in a from of denial; something we often accuse then of doing.
Here we run into a concept which I’ve talked about here many times in many different ways. In its simplest form it goes something like this;
You become that upon which you focus your attention. In this case it is the denial of reality.
Well, this person certainly has no persuasive writing ability. Anything unverifiable by immediate observation must be supported documented evidence. If you are too lazy to do that or don’t know how to do that, why do you think that competent and thinking people should accept such unsupported drivel? Just because you said so? WOW, what an unfounded and unbalanced omnipotence complex you have! That is actually being kind. The reality is that you have no respect for anyone and believe that you can, using sophisticated wording, present your fallacious arguments so smoothly that no one will think to look beyond the surface. Just some advice for trying to take on, in an academic argument, people that actually can read and think; DON’T DO IT unless you also have a deviant need to be humiliated for your own ignorance. A much wider majority of conservative thinkers are far more capable of rational argumentative thought than those who willingly allow themselves to be puppets of those who disdain individuality and self determination.
Sounds like Dana Lay is a good little leftist. Someone who never allows truth, reality or actual history to interfere with their agenda.
St. George Tucker was a law professor, judge and contemporary of the Founders. He provides a good window into the actual view of the times.
“And [the Founders] never complained about these laws”
19 April 1775 was not a complaint?
“This is particularly true if DanaLay is unable to cite laws restricting firearms during the founders’ lifetime.”
Compared to, say, laws that **required** firearms ownership, readiness, and proficiency during the founders’ lifetime.
The most likely explanation is that everything she said is purely an invention. Another possibility is that some of what she’s saying is taken from that notorious academic fraud who claimed that gun ownership in the time of the Revolution was rare. He folded like a cheap suit when asked for evidence (his answer was “the dog ate my evidence”) but in spite of that some people still talk about his fiction as if it were reality. Then again, they also talk about the crappy fiction of the “1619 project” as if it were real, so I suppose that isn’t a real surprise.
“that notorious academic fraud who claimed that gun ownership in the time of the Revolution was rare”
Bellesiles, iirc.
While I don’t have my references in front of me…
There are several instances of laws talking about the carrying of arms dating back to the 18th century US.
Stuff along the lines of, “if Trapper Dave is going to be in town and getting hammered, then he’s got to leave his rifle with someone who isn’t getting lit with him or wander around town with it loaded.”
But absolutely nothing about what kind of guns could own.