4 ms·
Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American politi
by linksnapzz 5y ago
Without a sufficiently precise definition for liberal, the most that I can say is that private ownership of firearms has been a feature of Anglo-American political practice since Charles Stuart. This, for the purpose of having a decentralized fighting force to oppose a centralized standing army that served the government.
You might say that the Stuarts were an unpopular but (in the modern sense ) more liberal...absolutist monarchy than the populist, puritan Protectorate was an illiberal theocracy, but I'd be wary of going too far retconning modern sensibilities to 17th century England.
And, it isn't necessary.
- handrous 5y agoSimply liberal as in "liberal democracy", which I'm using in the normal way, since the argument goes that that's the system and the general state of things that the 2nd amendment is vital to preserving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Again, I'm actually open to other forms of argument for gun ownership, and despite how my posts here have probably looked I consider measures to limit private firearms ownership unimportant, at best—I just don't find the particular position that they're extremely important to the preservation of liberal democracy such that one might reason "of course Australia is turning authoritarian—if more people there could legally own guns, that wouldn't be happening", compelling.