Commenting, as always, to say that’s not how the 2A was meant to be used. That’s a modern interpretation. Read it for yourself. It’s clearly talking about having militias ready to fight an invading country, as was standard practice at the time. Standing professional armies were unusual, especially for newly formed small nations.
Well I just think that whole part about “being necessary to the security of a free State” could be speaking about foreign or domestic threats.
And god fucking damn it I can’t find a SINGLE useful webpage on the original text of the 2nd amendment. Fuckin’ pissing me off lmao I swear this happens any time I try to find something about the constitution, it’s a god damned mess lol
Really? This is the site for amendments (for now at least). It’s the second result when I search. Second to Wikipedia.
I can see the argument for what you said, but it pretty clearly isn’t the primary reason, looking back with a historical lense. It also specifically says “well regulated militia” which definitely does not refer to people with no training who never use their weapon having one in their house. Usually a militia would store their weapons in a central place and would also train to be ready when called. The individual storage and ownership thing is not the expectation historically.
Commenting, as always, to say that’s not how the 2A was meant to be used. That’s a modern interpretation. Read it for yourself. It’s clearly talking about having militias ready to fight an invading country, as was standard practice at the time. Standing professional armies were unusual, especially for newly formed small nations.
Well I just think that whole part about “being necessary to the security of a free State” could be speaking about foreign or domestic threats.
And god fucking damn it I can’t find a SINGLE useful webpage on the original text of the 2nd amendment. Fuckin’ pissing me off lmao I swear this happens any time I try to find something about the constitution, it’s a god damned mess lol
Really? This is the site for amendments (for now at least). It’s the second result when I search. Second to Wikipedia.
I can see the argument for what you said, but it pretty clearly isn’t the primary reason, looking back with a historical lense. It also specifically says “well regulated militia” which definitely does not refer to people with no training who never use their weapon having one in their house. Usually a militia would store their weapons in a central place and would also train to be ready when called. The individual storage and ownership thing is not the expectation historically.