2 ms·

Lmao "the right to bear arms" domestically is going to what, stop a land invasion by Russia or something to the tune of that? Somehow, I don't think so. Instea

Lmao "the right to bear arms" domestically is going to what, stop a land invasion by Russia or something to the tune of that? Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does. Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.

shadowgovt 4y ago
This is basically a good take. The intent of the second amendment was multifaceted, but the most important aspect of it was probably that it allowed for a state level check on power of the federal government. Remember, all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were originally checks on federal power only. The second amendment was a distribution of the capacity for violence from a federal government that would need it (the Founders believed) occasionally for country-level protection to the individual states that were still extremely responsible for their own affairs and may not have ratified a Constitution that stripped them of the ability to defend themselves from threats. But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
MrMan 4y ago
exactly this, the right wing are truly dangerous, we will see how it plays out

shadowgovt 4y ago

This is basically a good take. The intent of the second amendment was multifaceted, but the most important aspect of it was probably that it allowed for a state level check on power of the federal government. Remember, all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were originally checks on federal power only. The second amendment was a distribution of the capacity for violence from a federal government that would need it (the Founders believed) occasionally for country-level protection to the individual states that were still extremely responsible for their own affairs and may not have ratified a Constitution that stripped them of the ability to defend themselves from threats. But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.

MrMan 4y ago

exactly this, the right wing are truly dangerous, we will see how it plays out