• Zatore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I dislike this “only guns from 1700’s” argument. The constitution didn’t make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn’t possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict “new” guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I’ll have to research more.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing:

      Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one

      We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.

      Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people

      • Zatore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn’t be in the constitution.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Article I Section 10 Clause 3:

        No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

        Article I specifically prohibits states from keeping standing armies and entering into wars.

        Militia != Military. A militiaman is not a “troop”. Militia are not under the command of a state. Militia are under no command. Individuals may be called forth from the militia into a state or federal army.

        If there is a constitutional remedy for force to be brought to bear against a tyrannical federal government, it is only through “We The People” - the militia - taking back by force what we previously granted it in peace.