• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    That’s not even correct (it being a right):

    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.

    The right of the people is a dependent clause on the whole “well regulated militia” part.

    The idea that everyone can just have whatever guns they want is a farce, but don’t listen to me take it from the Burg Man:

    This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

    source

    Further reading - How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Interesting that 2008 was the first time the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to a gun for self protection. The article argues that historically the right to keep bear arms was only applicable to those who were called to military service. That seems plausible to me though I can see how it could be interpreted either way as far as whether it only applies in the context of a militia.

      I also find it fascinating that one of the most prominent examples of gun control was targeting what could arguably be called a citizens militia. California passed the Mulford act, that banned loaded weapons in public without a permit. The bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther’s (aka Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods according to wikipedia.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Tbh I think that the intention was pretty clear, especially given the time in which it was written. Fledgling colonies building their own government weren’t worried about their government turning to tyranny, they were worried about what they perceived as the tyrannical government in their time, the Brits. Basically, stay ready soldiers, those tea-drinking queen-loving bastards might come for us any time now.

        As for the Panthers, this is also wholly unsurprising. Pretty obviously racist, and obviously a selective interpretation of 2a. Like pretty much any modern interpretation of 2a (see also, the 2008 ruling you cite.) Like, why can’t I own a rocket launcher or some grenades or maybe a low-yield nuclear warhead? Can I not arm myself against a tyrannical government? Many of those would be as foreign an idea to the framers as would be many of the totally legal guns you can buy today.