4 ms·
There was disagreement at the time of writing between the founding fathers, which was a factor in ending up with its somewhat quirky phrasing[0]. Most of this d
by agurk 6y ago
There was disagreement at the time of writing between the founding fathers, which was a factor in ending up with its somewhat quirky phrasing[0]. Most of this disagreement does seem to be about State vs Federal power rather than the topics in contemporary discussions about it.
The Supreme Court does seem to have settled upon it being an individual rights[1] issue. Considering all the other rights in the bill of rights are individual, there does seem to be some consistency to that.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0-g-cjxmM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Supreme_Court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago>Considering all the other rights in the bill of rights are individual, there does seem to be some consistency to that. But it could be argued that we would be a safer country if all of the rights in the bill of rights were collective rather than individual.
- nradov 6y agoSafety was never the primary goal.
- agurk 6y agoI would be interested in hearing that argument. On the surface it appears to be an argument of creating special privileged groups who are the only ones who have freedom of speech or the ability to avoid having troops billeted in their dwellings. Maybe that would lead to more safety? That makes me think of the society from Heinlein's Starship Troopers where you had to earn citizenship through civic duty. He certainly portrayed the non-citizens having a safe existence (during peacetime).