4 ms·

> that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias indep

by a1369209993 5y ago

> that it outlaws all limits on civilian weapons ownership except those which also apply to the military. Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. Just like the right to free speech isn't actually contingent on the specific wording or intent of the first amendment.) > Even among gun rights activists, few would go as far as you are going here. Thanks, I guess? Though that's more a condemnation of most gun rights activists.

skissane 5y ago
> Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. But what about the professional militaries of the state governments? (Which still exist on paper in every state, and in practice too in 22 of them; the "state defense forces"). The 2nd Amendment's intention was certainly not to give militias force parity with the professional militaries of the state governments. The point was to reserve the regulation of militias, and civilian weapon ownership more generally, to the states, not to put them beyond government regulation altogether. The very phrase with which the 2nd Amendment began, "A well regulated Militia", presumed the continuing power of the state governments to regulate militias, and hence also regulate (and even restrict) private firearms ownership. > (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to enforce a universal human right. That's reading back into it something in which you believe but in which the authors of the text itself by and large did not. There is no evidence that the majority of its authors and ratifiers shared your belief in a universal human right to gun ownership; very many of them had no problem with state and local laws limiting gun ownership, and the original intention of the text they enacted was solely to keep the federal government out of the matter.

skissane 5y ago

> Yes, that is the point; to ensure that militias independent of the national government have force parity with the professional military. But what about the professional militaries of the state governments? (Which still exist on paper in every state, and in practice too in 22 of them; the "state defense forces"). The 2nd Amendment's intention was certainly not to give militias force parity with the professional militaries of the state governments. The point was to reserve the regulation of militias, and civilian weapon ownership more generally, to the states, not to put them beyond government regulation altogether. The very phrase with which the 2nd Amendment began, "A well regulated Militia", presumed the continuing power of the state governments to regulate militias, and hence also regulate (and even restrict) private firearms ownership. > (Although strictly speaking I'm talking about the underlying human right that it enforces, not the second amendment per se. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to enforce a universal human right. That's reading back into it something in which you believe but in which the authors of the text itself by and large did not. There is no evidence that the majority of its authors and ratifiers shared your belief in a universal human right to gun ownership; very many of them had no problem with state and local laws limiting gun ownership, and the original intention of the text they enacted was solely to keep the federal government out of the matter.