4 ms·

I see your point, but as a non-American who's flooded with videos of random Americans walking around supermarkets carrying semiautomatic rifles, I'm not sure wh

I see your point, but as a non-American who's flooded with videos of random Americans walking around supermarkets carrying semiautomatic rifles, I'm not sure what you mean with "tightly regulated militia".

kelnos 6y ago
It's a joke. The text of the 2nd amendment is slightly ambiguous. Many people (myself included) believe that the intent of it was to protect citizens' right to arm themselves, but only in the context of being a member of a state-run/regulated militia. Unfortunately SCOTUS has continually widened the scope of 2A over the years. > as a non-American who's flooded with videos of random Americans walking around supermarkets carrying semiautomatic rifles You need to broaden your news sources; this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas.
- mosselman 6y ago
  > You need to broaden your news sources; this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas. The only places I have seen images like that is on sites like Reddit with some sort of 'Murica' text next to it, but it is still pretty insane that this sort of thing can be shrugged off as "this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas.". To be clear, I am not criticising you personally, but isn't it crazy that there are places in the US where people go to the cinema or super market in tactical gear and rifles and that the people around them don't run away screaming?
- jychang 6y ago
  > the intent of it was to protect citizens' right to arm themselves Unlike european countries, the american frontier was a dangerous place where every household needed a gun. Armed citizens existed regardless whether there was a militia or not.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Except it was also seen as a civic duty for able-bodied men to join the militia. If we're talking late 18th century, the Venn diagram of gun ownership and militia membership has a very large degree of overlap.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    While that may be true, that was not the intent of the 2nd amendment, which was there to ensure that regular citizens were both involved in the protection of the country's interests, and could act as a counter (by force, if necessary) to their own country if it decided to try to grab too much power and become tyrannical. Enshrining this right in the constitution had little to do with frontier safety.
- texanstereot 6y ago
  Texas isn't like that either. I've lived in Texas for almost a decade and I've never seen someone open carrying a long rifle at the supermarket. Geez, the stereotypes people spread!
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Sure, I know it isn't. But it still depends on where in Texas. If you're in Austin, yeah, you're probably not going to see people toting guns in supermarkets all over. If you're in Dallas or Houston, it'll be more common, but still not that common. If you're somewhere like San Antonio or Corpus Christi, it'll be even more common. But yeah, there are vanishingly few places in the US where you should expect to be in the presence of gun-toting civilians while doing something as mundane as grocery shopping.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Thanks for the context, that joke about the 2nd amendment's widening scope had indeed gone over my head. > You need to broaden your news sources To be fully honest, I don't think I "need" to anything. My life doesn't revolve around having an accurate impression of the US. The image your country spreads of itself is one of loud angry lefties on the coasts and gun wielding red necks in-between. I'm sure that reality is very different, but don't blame me for the bad country marketing :-)
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I have a different perspective. I think that the scope of the 2nd amendment has narrowed over the years. In 1776, private citizens owned every kind and sort of weapon used by the military. Ordinary people owned cannons, were instructed to put cannons on their private ships to defend against pirates, and owned the same sorts of muskets used by the army. The modern equivalent would be buying tanks at Walmart for cash and not registering the purchase nor requiring a background check. By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state. That still leaves open the question of what levels of discipline and drilling the (federal or state) government could demand of someone for them to be included in the Militia. It is already accepted that felons and the mentally ill may be prevented from exercising 2nd Amendment rights, so it is perhaps not inconceivable that there could be minimum and maximum age limits, or minimum numbers of training / inspection days for people to be deemed validly part of the Militia. Whether any such changes would reduce gun crimes, or increase crimes generally, or be politically viable or desirable, are separate questions.
    - splintercell 6y ago
      The government cannot demand anything. The well-regulated part is a justification clause. Imagine if the 2A said this: > "A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharply dressed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed." Does this mean that the government now has a right to force dress codes on people so that their suits are well tailored? Also justification clauses have been used in other contemporary laws too: > Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. (From NH Ex Post Facto Article) Does this mean that ONLY when the ex-post facto laws are injurious, oppressive and unjust, should that law be unconstitutional according to the NH constitution?
kevingadd 6y ago
The US is all about selective enforcement, and the undesirable hacker type and their unpleasant "cryptography" is likely a higher priority for munitions enforcement than an irritable white guy with an AR-15 at the supermarket, because only one of them actually threatens the status quo.
- capitol_ 6y ago
  I think the important word here is "white"
  - throwawayinfo 6y ago
    You're being racist.
  - lkdsajflkfdsjg 6y ago
    Groups of black men also walk around with assault rifles. Flagging and downvoting this doesn't make it false!
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Well, not anymore as it seems. But the hacker type might now share common interests with the AR-15 guy.
- ricksharp 6y ago
  But is the guy wearing a mask?
- rob74 6y ago
  Cryptography and the AR-15 may both be classified at weapons, but you can't actually shoot someone with cryptography. I suspect that may also play a role when it comes to enforcement...

kelnos 6y ago

It's a joke. The text of the 2nd amendment is slightly ambiguous. Many people (myself included) believe that the intent of it was to protect citizens' right to arm themselves, but only in the context of being a member of a state-run/regulated militia. Unfortunately SCOTUS has continually widened the scope of 2A over the years. > as a non-American who's flooded with videos of random Americans walking around supermarkets carrying semiautomatic rifles You need to broaden your news sources; this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas.

mosselman 6y ago
> You need to broaden your news sources; this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas. The only places I have seen images like that is on sites like Reddit with some sort of 'Murica' text next to it, but it is still pretty insane that this sort of thing can be shrugged off as "this is by no means common, except for perhaps in a few gun-happy states like Texas.". To be clear, I am not criticising you personally, but isn't it crazy that there are places in the US where people go to the cinema or super market in tactical gear and rifles and that the people around them don't run away screaming?
jychang 6y ago
> the intent of it was to protect citizens' right to arm themselves Unlike european countries, the american frontier was a dangerous place where every household needed a gun. Armed citizens existed regardless whether there was a militia or not.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Except it was also seen as a civic duty for able-bodied men to join the militia. If we're talking late 18th century, the Venn diagram of gun ownership and militia membership has a very large degree of overlap.
- kelnos 6y ago
  While that may be true, that was not the intent of the 2nd amendment, which was there to ensure that regular citizens were both involved in the protection of the country's interests, and could act as a counter (by force, if necessary) to their own country if it decided to try to grab too much power and become tyrannical. Enshrining this right in the constitution had little to do with frontier safety.
texanstereot 6y ago
Texas isn't like that either. I've lived in Texas for almost a decade and I've never seen someone open carrying a long rifle at the supermarket. Geez, the stereotypes people spread!
- kelnos 6y ago
  Sure, I know it isn't. But it still depends on where in Texas. If you're in Austin, yeah, you're probably not going to see people toting guns in supermarkets all over. If you're in Dallas or Houston, it'll be more common, but still not that common. If you're somewhere like San Antonio or Corpus Christi, it'll be even more common. But yeah, there are vanishingly few places in the US where you should expect to be in the presence of gun-toting civilians while doing something as mundane as grocery shopping.
skrebbel 6y ago
Thanks for the context, that joke about the 2nd amendment's widening scope had indeed gone over my head. > You need to broaden your news sources To be fully honest, I don't think I "need" to anything. My life doesn't revolve around having an accurate impression of the US. The image your country spreads of itself is one of loud angry lefties on the coasts and gun wielding red necks in-between. I'm sure that reality is very different, but don't blame me for the bad country marketing :-)
deathgrips 6y ago
I have a different perspective. I think that the scope of the 2nd amendment has narrowed over the years. In 1776, private citizens owned every kind and sort of weapon used by the military. Ordinary people owned cannons, were instructed to put cannons on their private ships to defend against pirates, and owned the same sorts of muskets used by the army. The modern equivalent would be buying tanks at Walmart for cash and not registering the purchase nor requiring a background check. By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > By the way, the archaic meaning of "regulated" means "properly disciplined and drilled". It did not refer to control or supervision by a state. That still leaves open the question of what levels of discipline and drilling the (federal or state) government could demand of someone for them to be included in the Militia. It is already accepted that felons and the mentally ill may be prevented from exercising 2nd Amendment rights, so it is perhaps not inconceivable that there could be minimum and maximum age limits, or minimum numbers of training / inspection days for people to be deemed validly part of the Militia. Whether any such changes would reduce gun crimes, or increase crimes generally, or be politically viable or desirable, are separate questions.
  - splintercell 6y ago
    The government cannot demand anything. The well-regulated part is a justification clause. Imagine if the 2A said this: > "A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharply dressed citizenry, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed." Does this mean that the government now has a right to force dress codes on people so that their suits are well tailored? Also justification clauses have been used in other contemporary laws too: > Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. (From NH Ex Post Facto Article) Does this mean that ONLY when the ex-post facto laws are injurious, oppressive and unjust, should that law be unconstitutional according to the NH constitution?

kevingadd 6y ago

The US is all about selective enforcement, and the undesirable hacker type and their unpleasant "cryptography" is likely a higher priority for munitions enforcement than an irritable white guy with an AR-15 at the supermarket, because only one of them actually threatens the status quo.

capitol_ 6y ago
I think the important word here is "white"
- throwawayinfo 6y ago
  You're being racist.
- lkdsajflkfdsjg 6y ago
  Groups of black men also walk around with assault rifles. Flagging and downvoting this doesn't make it false!
raxxorrax 6y ago
Well, not anymore as it seems. But the hacker type might now share common interests with the AR-15 guy.
ricksharp 6y ago
But is the guy wearing a mask?
rob74 6y ago
Cryptography and the AR-15 may both be classified at weapons, but you can't actually shoot someone with cryptography. I suspect that may also play a role when it comes to enforcement...