3 ms·

> To form state-level militia. Right, to expand on that a bit: 1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-

by Terr_ 4mo ago

> To form state-level militia. Right, to expand on that a bit: 1. When the Second Amendment was written, there was already an active legal framework of "well-regulated militias" through the Articles of Confederation. [0] Every single state was required to run and fund their own militia. 2. The bill of rights was originally (pre-civil-war) purely a set of restrictions on the Federal government, nothing in it bound states. One of its explicit purposes was to preserve state autonomy from the (new, worrisome) federal layer being created. 3. Therefore Second Amendment was (originally) intended to prevent the federal government from sneakily disarming individual states by literally removing their pool of arms and volunteers. Whether it should still mean the same after many years and other amendments is a much trickier problem, but the idea that it always meant an individual right to arms is a false mythology. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Joker_vD 4mo ago
> Whether it should still mean the same If we abstract ourselves from the politics, then yes, of course it should. I mean, the amendment could've simply been "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it isn't, it contains an intentionally added clarification in it as well. But the politics being what they are, some things got reinterpreted in rather baffling ways. The commerce clause is one of the most (in)famous examples; several (unchallenged) court judgements that declare that in some circumstances one has to actively invoke the fifth amendment, or else they'll lose its protections (?!) is another. The latter is personally the most baffling to me because not only it defies the very idea of such protections (you have them even if you don't have a decent lawyer) but it gives some marginal legitimacy to one of the insane juristic ideas of "sovereign citizens": if you say the right magic words, you'll get out of jail free, but you have to say them!

by Terr_ 4mo ago

Joker_vD 4mo ago

> Whether it should still mean the same If we abstract ourselves from the politics, then yes, of course it should. I mean, the amendment could've simply been "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but it isn't, it contains an intentionally added clarification in it as well. But the politics being what they are, some things got reinterpreted in rather baffling ways. The commerce clause is one of the most (in)famous examples; several (unchallenged) court judgements that declare that in some circumstances one has to actively invoke the fifth amendment, or else they'll lose its protections (?!) is another. The latter is personally the most baffling to me because not only it defies the very idea of such protections (you have them even if you don't have a decent lawyer) but it gives some marginal legitimacy to one of the insane juristic ideas of "sovereign citizens": if you say the right magic words, you'll get out of jail free, but you have to say them!