The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Founding Fathers didn't draft the 2nd Amendment with guntoting niggers in mind
| big effete address | 07/08/25 |
| Slimy coffee pot | 07/08/25 |
| Topaz stead gunner | 07/08/25 |
| big effete address | 07/08/25 |
| Slimy coffee pot | 07/08/25 |
| mind-boggling orchid station | 07/08/25 |
| Topaz stead gunner | 07/08/25 |
| mind-boggling orchid station | 07/09/25 |
| floppy theater stage | 07/09/25 |
| heady ungodly doctorate | 07/09/25 |
| bat-shit-crazy parlour ape | 07/09/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:41 AM Author: big effete address They clearly did not mean for niggers to carry firearms. Why is this never mentioned by originalists? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082201) |
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:44 AM Author: Slimy coffee pot there was that UF or something law student posted about here a few weeks ago who wrote an article saying exactly this, that the originalist interpretation clearly means the freedom only applies to White people and was never intended for negros (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082215) |
 |
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:45 AM Author: Topaz stead gunner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082217) |
|
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:53 AM Author: big effete address the founding fathers' cost-benefit analysis for allowing a right to bear arms clearly assumed niggers would be in cages and not allowed to get anywhere near guns, ever (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082242) |
|
Date: July 8th, 2025 11:01 AM Author: Slimy coffee pot 100% interestingly, Switzerland also has a constitutional right to bear arms *FOR CITIZENS* (it's a very heavily armed country), but the law also specifically *bans* foreigners of certain enumerated nationalities (a bunch of muslim and black african countries) resident in the country from owning arms |
|
Date: July 8th, 2025 11:37 AM Author: mind-boggling orchid station Correct. Most early “gun control” laws were specifically created with that purpose.
Hilariously, California had to cite some of these laws to defend its own shitlib gun control laws due to Thomas’ “history and tradition” test created in Bruen: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-02-07/if-we-must-rely-on-history-and-tradition-to-assess-gun-laws-does-racist-history-count . Of course they added an “ith tho rathist” disclaimer. |
|
Date: July 8th, 2025 11:39 AM Author: Topaz stead gunner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082369) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 1:40 AM Author: mind-boggling orchid station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49085166) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 1:42 AM Author: floppy theater stage Or individuals of any race. They just didn't want to threaten state militia since there was no national army yet (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49085168) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 2:22 AM Author: heady ungodly doctorate No, even the militia-minded view was an individual right to own weapons suitable for militia use, because they also viewed the militia as checking state authority. Here's an 1840 case taking this view https://guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html ("If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.")
BTW, what army did George Washington command? |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 6:40 AM Author: bat-shit-crazy parlour ape (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49085300) |