I beg to differ on it being the wrong reasons, the reasoning was solid... When forced to use history and tradition (from the founding era) as the judge, you can see that the founding fathers had for all intents no desire to infringe, thus supporting the textural meaning of the 2nd's "shall not be infringed" that they authored. Who better to show what they intended when they authored the 2nd, then using their own actions?
Fuck "tradition" it's in the Constitution for a reason.
Be careful what you wish for, if you fuck tradition, the Constitution is no longer applicable and is moot, as it is literally the traditional foundation of this nation... Most of the world has no tradition of letting the population have a codified right to self-defense using arms, one should not be so hasty to dismiss that tradition if one cherishes exercising it...
I don't think you understand what the Bruen ruling actually was, which was to establish a much more originalist approach to firearm ownership, effectively striking down numerous gun restrictions across the U.S. because they don't follow the traditional history and text of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody said anything about regulation. If anything this is helping strike down regulations.
Right decision, wrong reasons.
Fuck "tradition" it's in the Constitution for a reason.
I beg to differ on it being the wrong reasons, the reasoning was solid... When forced to use history and tradition (from the founding era) as the judge, you can see that the founding fathers had for all intents no desire to infringe, thus supporting the textural meaning of the 2nd's "shall not be infringed" that they authored. Who better to show what they intended when they authored the 2nd, then using their own actions?
Be careful what you wish for, if you fuck tradition, the Constitution is no longer applicable and is moot, as it is literally the traditional foundation of this nation... Most of the world has no tradition of letting the population have a codified right to self-defense using arms, one should not be so hasty to dismiss that tradition if one cherishes exercising it...
Regulation is not a founding principle. You are contradicting yourself.
The Constitution is not the tradition of regulation. Again, you are putting forward a lot of words, but not actually saying anything.
I don't think you understand what the Bruen ruling actually was, which was to establish a much more originalist approach to firearm ownership, effectively striking down numerous gun restrictions across the U.S. because they don't follow the traditional history and text of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody said anything about regulation. If anything this is helping strike down regulations.
Did you happen to see the part of the article I was quoting?
That would help clear up your confusion...