4 ms·

You have got the Second Amendment backwards. The idea that a well-regulated militia could bear arms was supposed to be a counterbalance to the new federal gover

You have got the Second Amendment backwards. The idea that a well-regulated militia could bear arms was supposed to be a counterbalance to the new federal government. It was about the states having recourse if they didn't like democracy. It was about ensuring the failure of the United States similar to how the Articles of Confederation failed, that power wasn't too centralized. The Second Amendment was about states' rights to maintain militias that could fight democracy; this was especially relevant to slave states that weren't fully on board with representative democracy. The Civil War was the ultimate aim of the Second Amendment. State militias banded together to fight the United States. It was never about ensuring democracy. The interpretation that the Second Amendment is about enabling individuals to protect their personal interests with guns is very new. And this idea that the Second Amendment is supposed to be about guns maintaining democracy is a perversion of even that. Coercion via the threat of violence from random, unelected strangers doesn't feel very 'democratic' to me.

trashtester 4y ago
>You have got the Second Amendment backwards. I'm not American, and I'm not writing specifically for the US. But after reading up on most periods of Western history, I did notice that whatever group of people served as the core of the army, tended to be the same group that controlled the country. And that this pattern seems to be older than history itself. > And this idea that the Second Amendment is supposed to be about guns maintaining democracy is a perversion of even that. The idea itself is almost certainly not new. Around the time of the American Revolution, Europe had been through a period of around 1800 years of mostly some form of tyranny. For most of that period, the "right to bear arms" (which tended to mean military grade weapons and armor) was restricted to the nobility or other privileged group, who would often take advantage of the monopoly for coercive purposes. (Kind of like the Sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood legend.) People living 200-250 years ago were certainly aware of that, as it was recent history for them. The concept that was new to them, was that of "democracy". Instead, they tended to care about "liberty" vs "tyranny". For instance, St. George Tucker in 1803: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty ... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." People at that era, just as now, had many different opinions, and I don't know the discussions well enough to know the precise intent of the Second Amendment. But whether it was the intent or a side effect, I believe one effect of an armoed populace (privately armed or drafted), is that it makes it harder for a would-be tyrant to take away all liberties. One example that may be more relevant than the USA, right now, is Russia. Russia still has a system partially based on the draft. But Putin is not willing to pull in all reserves the way Ukraine has done. A reason for that may be that it could increase the risk of the army turning against him.

trashtester 4y ago

>You have got the Second Amendment backwards. I'm not American, and I'm not writing specifically for the US. But after reading up on most periods of Western history, I did notice that whatever group of people served as the core of the army, tended to be the same group that controlled the country. And that this pattern seems to be older than history itself. > And this idea that the Second Amendment is supposed to be about guns maintaining democracy is a perversion of even that. The idea itself is almost certainly not new. Around the time of the American Revolution, Europe had been through a period of around 1800 years of mostly some form of tyranny. For most of that period, the "right to bear arms" (which tended to mean military grade weapons and armor) was restricted to the nobility or other privileged group, who would often take advantage of the monopoly for coercive purposes. (Kind of like the Sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood legend.) People living 200-250 years ago were certainly aware of that, as it was recent history for them. The concept that was new to them, was that of "democracy". Instead, they tended to care about "liberty" vs "tyranny". For instance, St. George Tucker in 1803: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty ... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." People at that era, just as now, had many different opinions, and I don't know the discussions well enough to know the precise intent of the Second Amendment. But whether it was the intent or a side effect, I believe one effect of an armoed populace (privately armed or drafted), is that it makes it harder for a would-be tyrant to take away all liberties. One example that may be more relevant than the USA, right now, is Russia. Russia still has a system partially based on the draft. But Putin is not willing to pull in all reserves the way Ukraine has done. A reason for that may be that it could increase the risk of the army turning against him.