4 ms·

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticis

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  That seems to be an oft-repeated argument, that may or may not be true but is certainly believed by some and is therefore relevant here. I don't personally care.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  From Britannica: “ The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. “ This seems to be what OP was alluding to.
evgen 5y ago
> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British invasion than it was a means for citizens to rebel against their own government.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government could rule on appropriate arms - or not - it is moot now.
  - evgen 5y ago
    The 'militia' is an outdated concept with as much relevance to modern life as the muskets they once used, but it was always intended to be a popular (as in 'of the people') manifestation of the state. As far as Heller goes, Scalia conjured that one up from thin air and no amount of weasel words from a justice can change historical fact. The 2A was never an individual right until Scalia declared it to be so, and this change is unlikely to last as long as many 2A proponents think it will.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      > 2A was never an individual right Right, except for all the reasons it was outlined to be exactly that for 240 years before you came along to say it wasn’t. Perhaps try the Federalist Papers, Jefferson, and Adam’s writings on the topic. You are free to disagree all you like, you are within all rights to call a majority decision wrong and the opinion of weasel words… your feelings change nothing. The militia argument is completely dead. 2A is an individual right. End of story until that decision is overturned. You are 13 years late to be upset over it.
glenstein 5y ago
>Lethal means would be required to safeguard that. Why is that? It sounds like you are saying that even if you don't need lethal force for self defense, you would need it for regime change?

JKCalhoun 5y ago

You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.

selfhoster11 5y ago
That seems to be an oft-repeated argument, that may or may not be true but is certainly believed by some and is therefore relevant here. I don't personally care.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
From Britannica: “ The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. “ This seems to be what OP was alluding to.

evgen 5y ago

> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British invasion than it was a means for citizens to rebel against their own government.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government could rule on appropriate arms - or not - it is moot now.
- evgen 5y ago
  The 'militia' is an outdated concept with as much relevance to modern life as the muskets they once used, but it was always intended to be a popular (as in 'of the people') manifestation of the state. As far as Heller goes, Scalia conjured that one up from thin air and no amount of weasel words from a justice can change historical fact. The 2A was never an individual right until Scalia declared it to be so, and this change is unlikely to last as long as many 2A proponents think it will.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > 2A was never an individual right Right, except for all the reasons it was outlined to be exactly that for 240 years before you came along to say it wasn’t. Perhaps try the Federalist Papers, Jefferson, and Adam’s writings on the topic. You are free to disagree all you like, you are within all rights to call a majority decision wrong and the opinion of weasel words… your feelings change nothing. The militia argument is completely dead. 2A is an individual right. End of story until that decision is overturned. You are 13 years late to be upset over it.

glenstein 5y ago

>Lethal means would be required to safeguard that. Why is that? It sounds like you are saying that even if you don't need lethal force for self defense, you would need it for regime change?