3 ms·

Question. What will it mean for the 2nd amendment when the police and armed forces of the world consists of semi-autonomous bullet proof robots and drones? "A

Question. What will it mean for the 2nd amendment when the police and armed forces of the world consists of semi-autonomous bullet proof robots and drones? "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." If guns that fire bullets aren't relevant to the security of a free state does it change the legal arguments? I think you guys should probably amend the 2nd amendment already

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
Every man needs a semi-autonomous bullet proof drone.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Or the means to stop them. EMP of some sort?
mcv 4y ago
How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in the world. And the only thing that looks like a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. The second amendment could be interpreted as meaning that only members of the national guard can own guns, but it's not.
- seanw444 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure Article 1 Section 8 was supposed to prevent us from having a perpetual standing army, but here we are.
- gameman144 4y ago
  > How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? This is the interesting thing: in the context of the framers, a standing army would not diminish the importance of the rights of militias at all (and might increase its importance). Keep in mind that the US declared independence due to perceived government overreach from Britain, which had a huge standing army. One of the primary functions of the second amendment is to ensure that ad hoc militias are possible, to keep the government and its army from overreach.
- tekknik 4y ago
  A militia, by definition, cannot be professional soldiers. Americans owning guns is a well regulated militia.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago

Every man needs a semi-autonomous bullet proof drone.

seanw444 4y ago
Or the means to stop them. EMP of some sort?

mcv 4y ago

How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? The US has had a standing army for quite some time now, and by far the most powerful one in the world. And the only thing that looks like a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. The second amendment could be interpreted as meaning that only members of the national guard can own guns, but it's not.

seanw444 4y ago
I'm pretty sure Article 1 Section 8 was supposed to prevent us from having a perpetual standing army, but here we are.
gameman144 4y ago
> How about if militia isn't relevant to the security of a free state? This is the interesting thing: in the context of the framers, a standing army would not diminish the importance of the rights of militias at all (and might increase its importance). Keep in mind that the US declared independence due to perceived government overreach from Britain, which had a huge standing army. One of the primary functions of the second amendment is to ensure that ad hoc militias are possible, to keep the government and its army from overreach.
tekknik 4y ago
A militia, by definition, cannot be professional soldiers. Americans owning guns is a well regulated militia.