• the_crotch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.

    I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.

      The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.

      The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.

      You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦

      • the_crotch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.

        The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.

        You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦

        Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.

          Suuure it is 🙄

          Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry.

          Except that’s not what the amendment itself says. That’s Alexander Hamilton’s opinion, NOT the rationale that was agreed on when drafting the text

          No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.

          And a bit of imagination to make the unconnected pieces fit together to mean what you want them to mean.

          You’re acting no better than the libertarian nutjobs who insist that taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.

          • the_crotch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            If my choices are the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment vs the opinion of some teenager on Lemmy, I’m gonna have to go with the former

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment ≠ the amendment OR the reason for the amendment, which explicitly mentions the ACTUAL reason.

              That shouldn’t be so difficult a concept to grasp.