4 ms·

> 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 inten

by 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  The 'militia' is an outdated concept with as much relevance to modern life as the muskets they once used, but it was always intended to be a popular (as in 'of the people') manifestation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.

by evgen 5y ago

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.