• DarthBueller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You just sent me down a rabbit hole of US state militia history, and now I feel like the 2d Amendment actually makes sense—people were expected to have their own weapons so they could be called by the state into militia duty if needed. Our current 2A precedent is so far off base it’s insane.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Next time anyone complains about gun control and cites the second amendment, just ask them what “well regulated” means over and over until they leave.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing that I find surprising is that I’ve always heard variations of “no one knows what they REALLY meant” when the drafters wrote 2A. I’ve known there were historical militias but I didn’t realize that they were either organized by the state or state-sanctioned. I didn’t think the drafters meant to create autonomous militias that are sedition prone (like the current private “militias” that play apocalypse games in the woods of the Midwest). And that’s because they FUCKING didn’t. It’s a relic and the current interpretation (guns for everyone at birth so they can blow anyone’s face off at the slightest provocation or accident) is a sham.