5 ms·
The wording (obtuse, to me) of the second amendment to the United States constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Stat
by meristohm 3y ago
The wording (obtuse, to me) of the second amendment to the United States constitution:
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.[0]
M-W Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
My questions:
To what degree is it okay to increase profit (see list below) from the sale of firearms?
1) by the manufacturer?
2) by the government(s) that bears a burden of firearm misuse?
3) by the government(s) that provides for the infrastructure to make and distribute firearms?
[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
- pstuart 3y agoAnd what does "well regulated militia" mean?
- ecshafer 3y agoWell regulated means armed and maintained. Militia means informal, non state sanctioned people with arms.
- pstuart 3y agoA take that seems to go deeper in a reasonable manner: https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-well-regulated-militia https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...
- pauldenton 3y agohttps://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
- water9 3y agoIt certainly doesn’t mean well, regulated as in restricted, because nobody’s gonna say oh no, we’re being invaded thank God we have so many restrictions limiting the size of our weaponry to protect ourselves, the security of the state will definitely be preserved because we’re so well restricted, I mean regulated
- riku_iki 3y agois there a view that 2a targets not necessary security of the state, but security of people against state which decided to become despotic one day?
- agensaequivocum 3y agoYes this was the prevailing view pre-20th century. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
- water9 3y agoI don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion
- pauldenton 3y agohttps://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
- woodruffw 3y agoYou’re confounding the concepts of organized and unorganized militia. The US has both; the framing of “security of a free State” implies that the 2A is almost certainly referring to the former and not the latter. (For why, understand that the framers themselves understood that a constitution cannot contain its own undoing, i.e. contain clauses that would allow the people to lawfully dismantle their own government. 2A interpretations that hinge on the individual’s right to overthrow a hypothetically tyrannical federal government fly in the face of this.)
- agensaequivocum 3y ago> With arms in their hands, the people will not be likely to permit the overthrow of their institutions by the unscrupulous ambition of a civil magistrate or military chieftain. The very fact of their being armed will serve as a check to any arbitrary or forcible invasion of their constitutional rights. ~ Henry Flanders 1860 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627 > Some tyrannical governments resort to disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, or participate in military parades. In all countries where despots rule with standing armies, the people are not allowed to keep guns and other warlike weapons. ~ Joseph Bartlett Burleigh 1852 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009 > This provision is so plainly proper that its propriety need not be argued. It will be sufficient to contrast it with the practice of despotic governments, who, while they maintain large standing armies, at all times subservient to their pleasure, will not allow arms in the hands of the common people. ~ Rev. Daniel Parker 1848 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616 > Right to Bear Arms - To deny the right of citizens to bear arms is a means employed by despotic rulers to enforce arbitrary government. Without such clause, ambitious men might, by the aid of the regular army, overthrow the liberties of the people. ~ Albert E Maltby 1909 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105 A long thread of many sources: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056
- 3y ago
- defrost 3y agoMilitia in the language of the day refers to local level trained, drilled, responsible men that can fight as an organised unit to defend the local area against outsiders. It doesn't mean that the village idiot gets a gun to threaten and start fights with.
- agensaequivocum 3y agoThe manufacturer is free to charge whatever he pleases for the product of his labor. The government cannot in anyway restrict the peoples access to firearms nor artificially increase the price by specifically taxing the right. Since the right involves commerce, I see no issue in a general sales tax applying to it. However, the government may not restrict an individual from manufacturing his own weapons and there may be no tax on those.