The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Founding Fathers didn't draft the 2nd Amendment with guntoting niggers in mind
| Plum Reading Party | 07/08/25 |
| Dashing Set | 07/08/25 |
| sooty stead | 07/08/25 |
| Plum Reading Party | 07/08/25 |
| Dashing Set | 07/08/25 |
| razzle emerald spot | 07/08/25 |
| sooty stead | 07/08/25 |
| razzle emerald spot | 07/09/25 |
| Cowardly church building | 07/09/25 |
| violet antidepressant drug senate | 07/09/25 |
| Indigo cerebral becky field | 07/09/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:41 AM Author: Plum Reading Party 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: Dashing Set 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: sooty stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082217) |
|
Date: July 8th, 2025 10:53 AM Author: Plum Reading Party 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: Dashing Set 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: razzle emerald spot 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: sooty stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49082369) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 1:40 AM Author: razzle emerald spot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49085166) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2025 1:42 AM Author: Cowardly church building 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: violet antidepressant drug senate 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: Indigo cerebral becky field (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5747530&forum_id=2#49085300) |