3 ms·

> it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the peo

> it's known that the framers of the Constitution meant for the people to have access to arms partly as a hedge against governmental use of arms against the people That's not known. Radiolab did a great piece on the 2nd amendment's history: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio... TL;DL: The idea that U.S. citizens should arm themselves to defend against a tyrannical government appears to be a relatively new idea. The text of the 2nd amendment is vague and unclear: > 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. The original intentions are shrouded in a historical fog of obscurity. So really, like most of the Constitution, the meaning is up to the people and the courts. That's why we established the Supreme Court, to help us establish the living meaning behind the Constitution ... oh wait: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/giggly-blue-robot https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi... The Supreme Court is also a modern day construction, also originally an object of constitutional obscurity. I guess the real summary of the U.S. Constitution can be summed up as ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bun_at_work 6y ago
It's important to take the 2nd Amendment WITH the 3rd Amendment. They complement each other in the framers eyes. Also, it's important to understand that contemporary terms muddy the waters. The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves. Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI

bun_at_work 6y ago

It's important to take the 2nd Amendment WITH the 3rd Amendment. They complement each other in the framers eyes. Also, it's important to understand that contemporary terms muddy the waters. The framers considered the military to be the only arm of force the government held. The police force wasn't a thing at the time. The 3rd Amendment says the government shall not quarter forces with the people, more or less. This seems to imply that the military shouldn't be deployed amongst the population as a means of applying the force of the government, which has a monopoly on force. Understanding the 3rd Amendment in this context provides a very clear picture of the 2nd Amendment. The people should have a well-regulated militia, with which they police themselves. Here's a video that does a decent job of highlighting what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Rm3tuMFTI