Yet another 2nd Amendment Question

[ajax18]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun rights are defined as belonging to a group: a well regulated militia, and the collective right of the people. But it does not talk about individual gun ownership.

So here's a theoretical situation: A town passes an ordinance that all militia weapons shall be stored in militia stations strategically located around town. When sued by the NRA, they respond that they are living within the terms of the second amendment: Indeed, they have a better regulated militia than one where no one knows where the guns are.

I know this sounds a bit off the wall, but would it have any merit as a legal tactic?

No it has no merit but that doesn't matter nor has it mattered for a very long time. 99% of law nowadays just comes down to the political bias of the judge who hears the case. A good lawyer can make a compelling argument for even the most off the wall fact pattern. Acording to Sheila Jackson Lee "the right to life," means a guranteed income for every indolent lazy man paid for by the working man. As she rightly points out, "It's a free country isn't it."

[honorentheos]

Ajax, do you realize your belief the rule of law does not exist is a fabrication that you've been given for political purposes?

No? Kindly flesh out your case with actual evidence rather than hearsay.

[Vēritās]

Ajax, do you realize your belief the rule of law does not exist is a fabrication that you've been given for political purposes?

No? Kindly flesh out your case with actual evidence rather than hearsay.

It puts the lie to their professed love for law and order. When you can convince yourself there is no such thing as rule of law or justice then it becomes a tool to justify unlawful action. Hence, storming the capitol.

The irony is that none of this was a talking point until Trump lost the election. In their minds, somehow the "Deep State" Democrats took control of everything from Congress, to the justice system even to Trump's inner circle, all the while Trump was in office.

Guess he really does suck when it comes to "draining the swamp" eh? That was his big sales pitch, along with a border wall, getting rid of national debt, free universal healthcare, etc.

Seriously ajax, why would you think this guy could produce anything he says he can produce when he's failed on virtually every promise? All he did for you was give the wealthy a permanent tax cut and appoint a bunch of religious nuts to the courts. That's it.

[honorentheos]

There's been a pattern on the right for as long as I can remember where the behavior of a Democrat becomes justification for complete abandonment of principle. Odds are anything you can think of as a radical ideological position or act on the part of Republicans can be tied to a justification that it's just fighting fire with fire. Even the craziness that is the insurrection on January 6th, 2021 is held up against a handful of Democrats refusing to certify the results of the electoral college in 2017 as well as the Bush years.

It's how this works. This perception ajax champions that the courts are corrupt isn't based on principle. It's a long standing strategy used to establish a moral belief the wrongs being done are still "right" in the bigger perspective. His entire new hobby horse is due to an FBI lawyer cutting a corner that resulted in his losing his job and being blacklisted in his career field, plus a ton of malarkey in the book he listened to by Paul Manafort. That's it.

Ajax doesn't think ajax is supporting the corruption of democracy. He thinks it's already corrupted so he's just using the tools of the devil to fight the devil. I think we see parallels of this kind of justification on the left, too, but not nearly to the degree we see this on the right.