2 ms·

> giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to

by pdonis 2y ago

> giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean that if the government decides to organize a formal militia, people's individual right to keep and bear arms goes away; that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government, just as the Americans resisted British tyranny using their own individual arms. In other words, the "well-regulated militia" is the entire body of armed citizens. The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it.

thfuran 2y ago
>that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government That doesn't really jive with the president being explicitly legally empowered to call upon the militia to quell insurrection.
- pdonis 2y ago
  Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only one. Indeed, once the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, one could argue that the United States were in fact organizing and using the militia to "repel invasion" by the British. But the militia was used before that happened, when the only grounds for its use was to resist tyrannical government by the British.
  - olliej 2y ago
    The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it. This trips up a certain segment of the populace, though, if we take your explanation at face value. In many states and locales, the citizens have regulated their own and each other's use of arms (I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording). They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation. And then they get told they can't. So it's "well-regulated", but "not that way"?
- pdonis 2y ago
  > I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording I didn't mean to imply that that is the only regulation citizens should exercise over each other's use of arms. Obviously citizens should also be regulating each other's use of arms to prevent private crime, since that is also a threat to the security of a free state. > They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation. First, no such delegation can violate the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land. It limits how much citizens can delegate. Second, what happens if the government they have delegated to becomes tyrannical, and stays that way despite changes in voting and legislation? What is the citizens' last resort? To resist the tyrannical government using their own individually borne arms. In other words, any such delegation can always be revoked, and the citizens have to have some last resort way of making the revocation good if the government refuses to accept it. > And then they get told they can't. Nobody has told them that. See above.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - olliej 2y ago
    > Nobody has told them that. See above. Literally they did exactly. People voted for and passed laws that regulated arms. Idiots want to play with toys and got those regulations removed, because nothing says "well regulated militia" like alcoholics and racists with automatic weapons. It's amazing the same people arguing "the government has no right to take away my unregulated and unnecessary guns" also argue the same government does get to regulate bodily autonomy, religion, etc

by pdonis 2y ago

thfuran 2y ago

>that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government That doesn't really jive with the president being explicitly legally empowered to call upon the militia to quell insurrection.

pdonis 2y ago
Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only one. Indeed, once the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, one could argue that the United States were in fact organizing and using the militia to "repel invasion" by the British. But the militia was used before that happened, when the only grounds for its use was to resist tyrannical government by the British.
- olliej 2y ago
  The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it. This trips up a certain segment of the populace, though, if we take your explanation at face value. In many states and locales, the citizens have regulated their own and each other's use of arms (I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording). They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation. And then they get told they can't. So it's "well-regulated", but "not that way"?

pdonis 2y ago
> I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording I didn't mean to imply that that is the only regulation citizens should exercise over each other's use of arms. Obviously citizens should also be regulating each other's use of arms to prevent private crime, since that is also a threat to the security of a free state. > They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation. First, no such delegation can violate the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land. It limits how much citizens can delegate. Second, what happens if the government they have delegated to becomes tyrannical, and stays that way despite changes in voting and legislation? What is the citizens' last resort? To resist the tyrannical government using their own individually borne arms. In other words, any such delegation can always be revoked, and the citizens have to have some last resort way of making the revocation good if the government refuses to accept it. > And then they get told they can't. Nobody has told them that. See above.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- olliej 2y ago
  > Nobody has told them that. See above. Literally they did exactly. People voted for and passed laws that regulated arms. Idiots want to play with toys and got those regulations removed, because nothing says "well regulated militia" like alcoholics and racists with automatic weapons. It's amazing the same people arguing "the government has no right to take away my unregulated and unnecessary guns" also argue the same government does get to regulate bodily autonomy, religion, etc