• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stand your ground has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is a law about self-defense. It says I have the right to defend myself from harm and I don’t have to flee to do so.

    That…is bizarre to me, but sure, I see your point.

    The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

    Right, and the collectivist view also required using a military-type weapon in a state-sanctioned militia. the fourth argument.

    In any case, the 2nd Amendment ensured the efficacy of state militarities at the time when the U.S. didn’t have a standing army. We have a standing army now. Whatever the interpretation, it’s an outdated amendment.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      4th isn’t requiring the weapon to be used in a militia. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The court clearly explains that a sawed off shotgun was not used in a militia, as an explanation of why it’s not protected by the 2nd. Basically militias had never issued them before (later; it was brought up this was incorrect and sawed off shotguns were used in ww1). It doesn’t require the use in a militia but that it’s a weapon of war.

      We’ve had a standing army for most of our history which is why we have the 2nd. It’s to keep the army in check. The founding fathers were very clear as to the purpose the 2nd.