Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian Edit: I’m not advocating for violence. More so “a well regulated militia” which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.
Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian Edit: I’m not advocating for violence. More so “a well regulated militia” which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.
The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.
Those first four words are always left out when the gun nuts talk about it. Without those 4 words, it fundamentally changes the meaning.
I can almost guarantee those words do not think what you think they mean. Regulated in this context means well armed.
No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
Literally the guys who wrote the constitution, were the ones discussing it in the federalist papers. The right of the people, not the militia… English that’s how it works.
The argument that somehow the founders fucked up the wording is pretty damn recent, and it’s driven by anti-2a gun control groups. The bill of rights is a list of rights for the people, not a list of rights for a militia or any other group. The people…
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
No…no it did not.
-June 8th 1789, James Madison
-Early draft of the 2nd amendment.
I would love to see a source on a state blanket banning firearms post bill of rights.
Because that did not happen.
Don’t worry they won’t be able to find it.
While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia… the members of the militia weren’t full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time… probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home. The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it’s own. This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized.