4 ms·

> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced

> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_mlbt 2y ago
That’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this. It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding… “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-united-states-on-the-second-amendment/ https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

_mlbt 2y ago

That’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this. It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.

JohnFen 2y ago
> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding… “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-united-states-on-the-second-amendment/ https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...