• @Buffalox
    link
    103 months ago

    I think you mean fuck the 2nd amendment. Because it does more harm than good.

    • @hime0321
      link
      English
      203 months ago

      The 2nd amendment says “a well regulated militia” and we do not have that. So maybe it’s fuck the politicians that keep our guns poorly regulated. That is what is doing more harm than good. The second amendment is designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from government tyranny not to have guns just for shits and giggles.

      • @Buffalox
        link
        8
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Regulated in that context wasn’t exactly like fishing regulations.

          A regularly trained soldier was considered a regular, as opposed to an irregular who was only trained as they were needed. The founders wanted groups who got together and practiced so they could have a more effective army when they needed kill some indigenous people.

          But why would we care what some 18th century slave owners thought when they were setting up a system to protect their class from the masses, the only guide to how the constitution is interperated is how it affects modern day society and anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or naive.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            They OBVIOUSLY wrote THAT specific Part of the Amendment with common language but the REST of it was OBVIOUSLY written thinking about the Future! That’s why Regulation refers to THEIR Regulation but Arms refers to OUR arms hundreds of years later!

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Sorry to burst your bubble, but the “arms” line was understood to include field artillery in their time. They would not have cared about machine guns, other than thinking how easy it would be to put down a slave rebellion with them.

              Fun Fact: one of the ways you became a commissioned officer at the time was not only buying the commission, thus the name, but outfitting the troops at least partly from your personal wealth. If you feel like getting some historical cultural shock look at how the old style armies were getting their arms, it’s all “Messir Tinglestamp purchased and donated twelve field guns from the proceeds of his harvest to help our campaign against the Godless Savages”

              If you want to make Originalist arguments against the 2nd Amendment your best bet is arguing for another Amendment, which they were absolutely for to acknowledge a changing world and changing needs, not assuming a bunch of dead slavers thought like you.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                Yeah dude, founding fathers wanted normal citizens to be able to fire off field artillery. I remember that part of the Federalist Papers.

                We don’t have militias anymore, no matter how much you twist it in your head to justify or rationalize it, it’s just bullshit and you know it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          Because the second amendment is written like ass, even for back then

          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

          Like, it’s stupidly easy to read that as “because militias are important the state can’t make laws impeding gun ownership”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              There isn’t one. However the actual context is that the slavers were the ones pushing for the existence of abundant militias.

              There was only one truly successful militia group in the Revolutionary War, led by the Swamp Fox and fighting as terrorists. The others were either ineffective or rolled into the Continental Army and trained as regulars.

              The Founders knew this very well, and they didn’t truly believe militias would check the power of the federal government. What they could do, however, is stop slave rebellions who would be even more poorly equipped and unorganized, or push natives out of their homes without it being an official act of the government. Like the “settlers” in the West Bank today.

              Edit: I see further down you actually knew this already.

      • EleventhHour
        link
        43 months ago

        Too bad SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way.

      • @saltesc
        link
        33 months ago

        Not just government tyranny, but outside threats too. When it was written, the state didn’t have the armies or infrastructure to defend the entire United States. Militias were intended to act as a national guard, should independence or the republic’s borders be encroached by outside nations. This required things to be “well-regulated” too. Who has what weapons and where should militias need to be raised to protect the free-state.

        In no way can I fathom a militia comprised of today’s Gravy SEALs and common citizens being effective, either in organisation or physical ability. Ironically, their aid would likely be a negative things for forces protecting the state. All because of poor regulation.