• hime0321@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The 2nd amendment says “a well regulated militia” and we do not have that. So maybe it’s fuck the politicians that keep our guns poorly regulated. That is what is doing more harm than good. The second amendment is designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from government tyranny not to have guns just for shits and giggles.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Regulated in that context wasn’t exactly like fishing regulations.

        A regularly trained soldier was considered a regular, as opposed to an irregular who was only trained as they were needed. The founders wanted groups who got together and practiced so they could have a more effective army when they needed kill some indigenous people.

        But why would we care what some 18th century slave owners thought when they were setting up a system to protect their class from the masses, the only guide to how the constitution is interperated is how it affects modern day society and anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or naive.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because the second amendment is written like ass, even for back then

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

        Like, it’s stupidly easy to read that as “because militias are important the state can’t make laws impeding gun ownership”

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            There isn’t one. However the actual context is that the slavers were the ones pushing for the existence of abundant militias.

            There was only one truly successful militia group in the Revolutionary War, led by the Swamp Fox and fighting as terrorists. The others were either ineffective or rolled into the Continental Army and trained as regulars.

            The Founders knew this very well, and they didn’t truly believe militias would check the power of the federal government. What they could do, however, is stop slave rebellions who would be even more poorly equipped and unorganized, or push natives out of their homes without it being an official act of the government. Like the “settlers” in the West Bank today.

            Edit: I see further down you actually knew this already.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not just government tyranny, but outside threats too. When it was written, the state didn’t have the armies or infrastructure to defend the entire United States. Militias were intended to act as a national guard, should independence or the republic’s borders be encroached by outside nations. This required things to be “well-regulated” too. Who has what weapons and where should militias need to be raised to protect the free-state.

      In no way can I fathom a militia comprised of today’s Gravy SEALs and common citizens being effective, either in organisation or physical ability. Ironically, their aid would likely be a negative things for forces protecting the state. All because of poor regulation.