3 ms·

I thought the meaning of the 2nd amendment is now not solely understood as needing a well regulated militia. It is presented as an example of the benefit. So a

I thought the meaning of the 2nd amendment is now not solely understood as needing a well regulated militia. It is presented as an example of the benefit. So a modern sentence would be something like The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For example, it is required if a well-regulated militia is to be assembled. Thus disconnecting the "well-regulated militia" idea as the sole justification.

doodlebugging 5y ago
No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a divisive issue. Looking at the history though you would want to be a revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that manner. It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through multiple revisions before arriving at the final version precisely because each state had reservations about the level of power that should be given to individual citizens. They based their reservations on their own experiences dealing with threats on the frontier and with their experiences raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force capable of defeating a well trained army during the American Revolution. They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an independent nation capable of defending itself from the threats they knew about or could expect at the time. Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a compromise between those who were charged with codifying standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.
- emmelaich 5y ago
  You probably know a lot more about it than me. I'm not even from the USA. I was using the DC v Heller 2008 case and various commentaries on that.
  - doodlebugging 5y ago
    I'm no expert on any of this. I'll have to look up that case for context. Thanks for the discussion.

doodlebugging 5y ago

No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a divisive issue. Looking at the history though you would want to be a revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that manner. It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through multiple revisions before arriving at the final version precisely because each state had reservations about the level of power that should be given to individual citizens. They based their reservations on their own experiences dealing with threats on the frontier and with their experiences raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force capable of defeating a well trained army during the American Revolution. They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an independent nation capable of defending itself from the threats they knew about or could expect at the time. Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a compromise between those who were charged with codifying standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.

emmelaich 5y ago
You probably know a lot more about it than me. I'm not even from the USA. I was using the DC v Heller 2008 case and various commentaries on that.
- doodlebugging 5y ago
  I'm no expert on any of this. I'll have to look up that case for context. Thanks for the discussion.