edit- follow up question
“a well regulated militia”. since the amendment was passed, and since the US has a military, has there even been a militia? would you trust your random neighbours loading up and marching against something? or would you expect law enforcement to crush it?
seems like the amendment has become “the locals can have guns and murder each other”. Nothing to with a “militia”; or defending your country.
It’s right there in the text. It’s worth pointing out, the second amendment is unique in the fact that it’s the only law in the entire US Constitution where the justification is provided directly in the text. The reasoning and justification for the second amendment were considered that important to the people who wrote it.
It’s also worth pointing out, in the parlance of the time, “well regulated” simply meant “working correctly”. A “well regulated” clock, for example, is one that keeps accurate time.
The founding fathers warned against standing armies because they’re abused by tyrants. They envisioned, in the event the US was invaded, the response would consist of locals, armed with whatever they could procure, organizing to repel the invading force. This was in the days when private citizens owned muskets, gatling guns, cannons, and warships.
People were also expected to make and practice these invasion response plans, like fire drills, but this was never codified because they never thought they would need to explain that to people; it was simply understood to be a requirement that came with the responsibility.
This made sense in a lot of ways. People who know each other will readily cooperate. Locals will be familiar with the local geography, which was a big advantage in the days before accurate maps or quick communication.
Since then, things have changed. A lot. But the amendment has remained. I still think it’s important to enshrine the people’s right to self-preservation and self-defense. But I also don’t feel like typing a 10K word essay with my thumbs today.
hmmmmm
Excellent comment, but gatling guns weren’t invented until the 1860s.
Edit: I also want to point out that I very much agree with this part:
My thoughts on 2A have evolved a lot over the years, but especially in recent years (hmm I wonder why) I’ve gotten more used to the notion that the “take all the guns away” flavor of anti-2A is actually a pretty privileged take. It’s really easy for me as a straight white male in a good neighborhood to say that no one needs guns, but I’m not very oppressed in the grand scheme of things and I can imagine that a lot of people out there want the right to defend themselves right about now.
And the first piece of gun control legislation was passed in 1934
Tommy guns were invented in 1918 and used widely in organized crime in the 20s. I bet that had a lot to do with it.
Wiki says
Repeating rifles existed back then. The founders being well read would have been aware of their existence. Some of these repeating rifles were in use on the frontier. The Girardon air rifle could shoot 20+ rounds and was famously used by the Lewis and Clarke expedition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/11/multi-shot-assault-weapons-of-the-1700s-and-the-2nd-amendment/
Sure, so why has no one shot the tyrant trump? Or are all the school shootings worthless since noone actually uses the 2nd amendment to remove tyrants?
Cut the crap. Gun owners today are not part of any militia. Never have been nor will be. FFS, gangs are the closest there is. And I thought the general consensus was it’s a really bad thing that they’re armed to the teeth.