Historically Illiterate Liar Jamie Raskin Goes Full Gun-Grabber Defining ‘Well-Regulated Militia’
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about the eeeevvvvvvillll Republican plan to respect the Second Amendment rights of Americans and roll back unconstitutional gun laws.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, who never fails to be wrong about everything, gave some remarks and — true to form — gets the Second Amendment totally wrong:
Rep. Raskin: “The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a ‘well-regulated militia’ means well-regulated by the government.” https://t.co/1jym8GYzfk pic.twitter.com/V7U1yEmUFS
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 4, 2025
You can watch Raskin’s opening remarks here:
Ranking Member @RepRaskin delivers opening remarks at today’s hearing on Republican efforts to dismantle proven gun safety laws and make communities less safe. pic.twitter.com/6kom175RWN
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) March 4, 2025
Of course, the ‘well-regulated militia’ clause does not mean that the government gets to restrict the use of or access to firearms.
Raskin is either woefully ignorant, or a bald-faced liar. The SCOTUS settled the militia question back in 2008:https://t.co/x6qSqzogyd pic.twitter.com/oS22ZvbPqF
— Hamas Delenda Est (@OverpaidA) March 4, 2025
Embrace the healing power of ‘and’, friend.
Recommended
lol no
— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) March 4, 2025
Exactly.
A well-regulated Democrat, being necessary to the downfall of a free state, the right of @RepRaskin to remain dictatorial, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right and for what purpose?
— Currermell (@currermell) March 4, 2025
Raskin will never understand the point you’re making here.
William Paterson, Supreme Court justice, member of the Constitutional Convention, and signer of the U.S. Constitution, disagreed.
“What, indeed, is a militia but the people themselves prepared to act as soldiers for the purpose of resisting oppression and securing their rights.” pic.twitter.com/sxVAmKYGRl
— General Grievous 🇺🇸 (@DookusRoyal) March 4, 2025
‘Well, what did he know about the Constitution?’ – Jamie Raskin probably.
Raskin is one of the bigger morons in Congress. And that’s saying something.
— JerseyJoeWalcott (@JerseyJoeWalc) March 4, 2025
That competition is STIFF.
It has not. https://t.co/b2ZcUEcSZn
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 4, 2025
Never was and never will be.
LOL come on, that’s just completely mendacious. https://t.co/qmzJqp4GlQ
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) March 4, 2025
Being completely mendacious is what Raskin’s best at, though.
If militias were to be maintained by the government, then why did Hamilton and Washington immediately start a professional army that put down rebellious militias? https://t.co/zME5D3SUDG
— Herodotus (@btmlineman) March 4, 2025
Raskin won’t be able to answer this, either.
Tell me you’ve never read a single sentence of a Supreme Court opinion without telling me you’ve never read a single sentence of a Supreme Court opinion, @RepRaskin.
🤡🤡🤡 https://t.co/sT1xu5kE8A
— Brandon 🇺🇸🥓🥃 (@Brash_1) March 4, 2025
Like all Democrats, he’ll just ignore the SCOTUS opinions he doesn’t like.
The Second Amendment is clear, and our rights shall not be infringed. Not by Raskin or anyone else.
