Really wonder how the founders would have worded or organized things differently if they could have seen 2000+ in a crystal ball
My long running joke about this is
“Do you know what Thomas Jefferson would say if he saw America today?”
“No what?”
“‘Holy shit who let all the slaves go!?!’l
Also "They're still using that shit we wrote over 200 years ago?"
His letters show that he felt each generation/20ish years the constitution should be re-written so that the present generations were not bound by laws written by those who were now dead.
Maryland does automatically put this option to rewrite the state constitution on the ballot every 25 years iirc. It doesn't pass.
Meanwhile the California Constitution is being constant amended by direct democracy!
Rather than a guiding set of principles to constrain legislation ...
My home state of Connecticut does this but every 20 years, in keeping with Jefferson's advice. The last one was in 2008 and the next will be in 2028. It has never passed since it's introduction with the Constitution of 1965, the current constitution. Previously such referenda were held every now and then, and one passed in 1901, but the resulting constitution was heavily defeated when presented to the voters in 1902.
That was part of a larger thing where he basically believed, at least for a time, that all society should be reset every 19 years (the length of a generation in his calculation). All debts would be cancelled, laws rewritten, etc. Not really a bright idea in its entirety.
Re-examination of laws and constitution every once in a while is definitely not a bad thing.
Keep in mind he was the only Founding Father to want this.
Which serves to discount the founders as some homogeneous, single-minded entity evoked by people who are quick to cite "what the founders intended/wanted"
Ben Franklin would be terminally on pornhub
Searching exclusively for "mature"
as a featured actor. That dude was frisky as all gitup.
“Who let all the women out of the house?”
he'd be all rubbing it in and shit...
'guess i'll get MYSELF some water... because we DON'T HAVE SLAVES anymore'
"Slavery is an abomination and must be loudly proclaimed as such, but I own that I nor any other man has any immediate solution to the problem."-Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson can and should be faulted for his record on slavery, but I think it's pretty clear that he would be happy to see that slavery had been abolished.
Holy shit you went to the moon?
He’s the perfect example of a rich person who talks the talk but doesn’t walk it. His peers were all letting their selves go, he was talking about wanting to free the slaves, but he kept his. Whereas Alexander Hamilton, came up from nothing to be surrounded by rich people like Jefferson, could have taken the money from the country for his service but instead refused (most if not all) and became a lawyer, never bought or kept any slaves.
Well first they‘d wonder why all the poors are now allowed to vote when everyone knows politics is for the landed gentry only
What, like it could be amended? Get out of here you commie
It’s a “commie” action to modernize the second but it is “patriotic” to absolve supreme court rulings and infringe any and all other amendments that aren’t the second? The “separation of church and state” needs to be enacted more than ever.
It's not so much church and state as it is legal political bribery
lol
Living document how dare you we need to stick by it word for word as written in the 18th century...
Any reasonable person should interpret the constitution as a living document and apply solid juris prudence to it but some people unfortunately some on the supreme court don't believe that...
lol, by our standards, they would have been stuck with laws from 1450.
Good 'ol English Law?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson
Samuel Alito: "nah"
They probably assumed an entirely new constitution would be drafted every so often, using the amendments added over the years. They very likely didn't expect it to be treated like holy scripture!
Jefferson expected the Constitution to be rewritten every generation to keep up with the times.
Source (see the paragraph "Think About It): https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20letter%2C%20Jefferson%20states,repair%20as%20they%20see%20fit.
How are you supposed to just "rewrite" the constitution when it is made purposefully difficult to change?
Yeah idk about rewriting the constitution entirely like that. Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a new autocrat in power to have it fully rewritten in their favor.
Pretty sure Putin recently had that done to keep him in power.
If you're rewriting the constitution entirely, you don't need to follow the procedures and restrictions from the previous one. The founders certainly didn't. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent from the states to make any changes, but the Constitution was ratified with a 2/3rds vote.
Jefferson was huge proponent of rewriting the constitution every generation
All these original constitutionists should realize that they are only due a musket. Bend the constitution to what you believe.
3.8
I only know this because it's printed on the top of the urinals in most public restrooms. 1gal/3.8L per flush. 😎
the skit if you haven't seen it. great skit
Nate bargatze is so funny
Foot Ball, sir?
Cuts close to the bone, but overall some some good stuff there!
3.78.
I only know this because it's printed on milk jugs and I don't know how to prepare any meals but cold cereal.
3.785.
I only know this because Google told me so.
3.7854
I only know this because we're doing a reddit chain thing.
Never in doubt…
Originalist interpretation if I ever saw one.
I found out recently that "arm" meaning both weapon and the body part is a coincidence, and that the words are unrelated. The body part came from the word "erm", whereas "arm" meaning weapon shares a root with army / armada / armory etc.
Arms is short for armaments which comes from the Latin term armamentum which is from the term armare which means to arm meaning to give weapons. Basically it is derived from two Latin terms meaning to give weapons or weapons.
Armaments as we understand them today means military grade weaponry.
ar·ma·ment
noun
plural noun: armaments
- military weapons and equipment.
"chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments"
- the process of equipping military forces for war. "instruments of disarmament rather than of armament"
"Also add some more commas to make sure the message is as unclear as possible...I don't care if there is nowhere they make sense, add them anyway!"
They were basing their wording off of ancient Roman Law grammar which is why it sounds so strange to us. For them they were clearly saying that it was the right to bear arms in a militia.
At the time the term meant something different. “Bearing Arms” meant being part of a military, so it included medics and drummer boys, and it did not encompass hunting. Some states actually had a Right to NOT Bear Arms due to the influence of pacifists like the Quakers.
Their idea of gun rights was very different, they felt that being a militiaman was part of being a citizen, and everyone would be forced to have guns that would be registered to them, though not necessarily with ammo. Nobody would be happy if we returned to that era of gun control.
This is correct, but at the time of its writing, police officers didn't exist. The first police force in the US wouldn't exist until 40 years later. In addition, weapon repositories for militias wouldn't be a thing until 20-30 years after the 2nd amendment. The National Guard didn't exist either - at least not in a way any of us would recognize.
The 2nd amendment is so severely out of date. States don't need militias made of citizens in order to defend themselves.
Now gun nuts just claim a militia of one is still a militia. Uh-huh
a militia of one is still a militia
Which gets even funnier, if you think of the etymology of militia coming from the Latin word for soldier, or miles...which in return could originate from Etruscan for "someone coming in a bunch of thousand" (think of miles, milligram, etc.).
The Roman grammar was about not inverting cause and effect. You can get a more normal sounding sentence by just inverting it and putting "because" in the middle. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".
Bear arms was not specific to militias, American usage of the term was pretty sparse but there are several English references around the time to a right for Protestants to keep and bear arms that wouldn't make much sense if it was connected to military service. It certainly can mean to bear them in a militia but it's not exclusive.
Militias having registered guns is not something I'm aware of being common at that time. I think there were cases where people had to demonstrate they had a weapon but not having it serialized or something.
Holy shit so wrong. If thats the case why did they wrote the militia act where you were required to provide your own firearm amd powder and ammo? Not even close to being correct. No where they mention registration ever once of a firearm.
the militia is the people......
To be fair ammo was just raw lead and and black powder, which you can make/form into projectiles yourself
Black powder that very few people had free access to, considering they had to gather and use the whole villages' piss for their saltpeter mounds in order to be able to produce it. That' the thing the gun nuts refuse to acknowledge when they say "with proper gun control everyone can still make guns", sure they can, but you can't just make the amounts and quality of propellant you'd need to make your own ammo.
Dude no. Black powder was readily available. Ypur trying to use a single example due to a drawn out battle that it was some how scarce.
The basis of a lot of nationalistic fervor is the honor and duty a citizen has to defend their nation. The problem is that our national founding doesn't fit neatly in with things like French and German nationalism, and so it is easy to neglect the parallel influences.
If only we taught our children to do things like read history and learn rhetoric.
It’s also cause fielding an army is expensive. The Brits didn’t want to fund a military to protect the settlers on the fringes of the territories after the French/Indian war cause they were broke after funding a global 7 years long war. They won, but were broke afterwards.
The founding fathers knew this as they were also broke after the revolutionary war. They wanted everyone to be in a militia that only got paid if they got called up. Much cheaper that way to ensure soldiers in times of need, and no large standing army to fund.
This was clearly evident by when George Washington went to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in Western PA. He didn’t take the army along with him, but militia men, cause there wasn’t an army. And all of those guys were armed with their own personal rifles.
Other instances where a state militia was supplied with powder and lead for defense and that was it.
It was to keep slaves at bay. Slaves made up a sizable demographic in the south.meaning their rebellions had to be put down with a well ordered miltia who would routinely go through slave barracks and the like to find any contraband. While also beating and killing the occasional slave. It's what you gotta do when you have millions of people in chains. They'll fight back. That's what it was for. They didn't make a rule about swords, or cannons, or owning a frigging frigate. No it was for hand held arms. And to be able to form a militia. Everything wrong with America traces back to slavery. We were the last western nation I believe to illegaloze slavery. Which says a llooot about what freedom and happiness means to the founders. Bunch of drunk racist shits.
Yeah, they definitely had rules about owning frigates. Letters of Marque are explicitly granted as a power of Congress in Article 1 of the constitution. Private citizens owned and operated the most destructive weapons of war for the era, single examples of which were routinely used to lay siege to entire cities.
You can also buy a functional cannon and have it shipped to your house right now if you want, with no background check. They’ve never been regulated at all.
To be fair, a single-shot muzzle-loader was a "military grade" weapon in the 1700s. The Gatling Gun was also invented in 1861 and is not considered an automatic weapon.
Well kind of. True military weapons of that era tended to be smoothbore for faster loading with bayonet lugs and were made to the same pattern (although parts were seldom interchangeable). Hunting weapons of the era were more geared for accuracy and often were rifled and were probably not built as robust. Before the invention of the minie ball that meant slower loading with then rifling. But yeah, all in all yeah it was a lot closer than today. The founders didn’t have any illusions that every random citizen without organization would have a gun and be effective as a fighting force via osmosis, so they totally meant for citizens to be in what basically was the national guard. Even back then real armies had other things like Calvary, cannon, transport and logistics forces. That whole chest thumping idea that random citizens will just all rock up and yell “wolverines!” and take on an actual army has always been a pipe dream.
Fun fact: the end of the revolutionary war, the British fielded their first breach loaded rifle. It barely doubled the fire rate of small arms. But to act like people back then just assumed guns would stay the same forever is pretty funny
Personally I think anyone talking about the importance of private gun ownership before WW1 should be considered obsolete. Marx too. They were writing in a time where civilians actually stood a chance against their military going all out. Now gun nuts have to assume that the military would play just nice enough to let the civilians win.
It's a paradox that has always confused me.
Pump TRILLIONS of dollars into a bloated military... Giving the military weapons that could wipe out an entire convoy of "revolutionaries" from the comfort of a gaming chair on the other side of the country...
Then claim civilians owning semi-automatic, or even fully automatic weapons will balance the scale...
I think people should have the right to fight back against an oppressive government whether or not they can plausibly succeed. Your right to self defense, autonomy and so on isn’t based on probability.
You'd think they would want to cut back on the military spending just a tiny bit...
Something something something vietnam
The man-made sun will cleanse this land of its traitors! Let us bathe in its holy light!
If the government starts using nuclear weapons on its own citizens then we have far bigger problems.
User deleted comment
13d
The problem isn't technical its psychological
The problem is you're fantasizing going to war with the government while assuming that the government will handle you with kid gloves in your fantasy war. Are the soldiers only going to kill you a little bit?
The US has lost 2 wars in the past 50 years due to irregular forces with mostly small arms.
Moderator removed comment
13d
A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners.
Tanks and APCs can, in fact, stay in the same place.
And enforce "no assembly" edicts.
Pretty sure military hardware can disperse a crowd very effectively.
The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure.
It also doesn't want a tyrannical police state but that doesn't stop your fantasizing.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy.
Completely unable to defeat them, only able to survive long enough for the US to get bored and go home because public opinion has shifted on the war. But we're talking about a scenario where they are home, and they don't care about public opinion.
My primary point is that the idea that the 2A should only apply to muskets because that's what they had at the time is completely bunk. There was no standing army at the time so militias were expected to be armed as well as any enemy they may end up fighting. No point in having a militia if they're going to be cut down within the first 5 minutes of conflict.
Also, only the most insane nutters believe that they could actually go toe-to-toe with the largest military on the planet. The US military is extremely good at asymmetrical warfare, there isn't even another professional military that would stand a chance in direct conflict (well, maybe China just from sheer number of troops). What the US military is NOT good at is handling insurgencies.
How long did Vietnam last? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? We spent 20 years bombing caves in Afghanistan then ended up handing the country over to the Taliban anyway. When the options of carpet-bombing or drone-striking your way to victory are eliminated then the conflict becomes very complicated. Then you add in asking the US military to turn on the people it is sworn to protect. Not gonna happen. They can't go door-to-door either killing or detaining every American with a firearm, there isn't enough manpower or places to put everyone.
It’s always kind of been obsolete. Actual armies have always had things a normal person would have been hard pressed to get or organize, like cannon, logistics, Calvary. The founders probably wanted to guarantee they could raise a militia because they were flat broke from the war of independence where, yes, we had a regular army and navy to fight Great Britain alongside organized irregular forces.
And in pretty much every case of guerilla warfare people cite, there's outside help, including the Revolutionary War, from France.
In the event of an armed civil war kicking off in the US, I can pretty much guarantee you that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be dancing from happiness and doing their best to flood the rebels with weapons and support, likely from our southern border.
I’d also expect cartels to go wild, with high possibility of some northern mexico/southwestern US narco microstates developing.
And France, which had a navy and sent troops and officers.
Ah so we should just give up our rights cuz it's harder to defend our rights? No.
The only right you're concerned about defending with guns is the right to own guns, which is impossible to defend wit the guns you're allowed to own.
They already had semi-auto rifles effectively no different than what we have today as well. They were used in the revolutionary war.
Also referring too “if the brits come back we need an army, lickity split”
But private militias could own cannons. They were expected to be able to able to be the primary army. The early army was very small. The founding fathers didn't want a large standing army.
A regular person could own a cannon
They could, and that's what I meant by private militias as opposed to state militias.
They didn't want, or need, a "standing army". But we have to have one now. This is an example of our society changing in ways that could not have been predicted, and why the constitution was supposed to be a living document.
And we have a way to update the constitution. Why would the 2nd not cover modern arms, but the 1st cover radio, internet, TV?
All of the 2nd amendment or only part of it?
If we really want to be up to date, every household should be allowed tactical nukes.
“Angry man getting out of the bar at 2:30 AM nukes the city again, more news from the best news fallout shelter in the city at 6”
When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes. You can have my W59 thermonuclear warhead when you pry it from my cold dead hands!
Many governments can't make or afford nuclear weapons, so it would really make no difference. No average american household would have nukes, even though they have a right to them.
So does the first amendment only apply to free speech disseminated by the technology of the time as well?
If you say something against a government official on the Internet, you can be arrested since the first amendment only covers town criers?
The technology of the time would include "saying it out loud". So... so long as you say it out loud before you post it online you should be covered.
It had nothing to do with the equipment, it was about avoiding a standing federal army.
And protection against the army if it should exist.
If they are truly Originalists, then all arms should only be able to fire a single shot before reloading.
Ah, but there’s no restriction on how many guns you can have, is there?
The government in the US doesn’t give its citizens the right to own guns.
Lol what
And only use ink and quill!
eh, i do support gun legislation, but the meaning of the document was to exist as a permanent threat to any tyrants that American people would have the capacity and resources to take up arms for their freedom.
The Constitution says that one of the militia's three duties is to put down insurrections.
A lot of people misconstrued the wording of the 2nd amendment.
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.
In understanding the wording this is were historical context has to apply.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Regulated in this context means we'll maintained. Militia is all able body men, aka the people, who could be called upon when needed to defend towns and states. Now security of the free State, at the time the founders where cautious about authoritarian and tyrannical rules. So for a state (country) to maintain freedom it should have a well maintained group of men who can be called upon to defend the free State.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second part then clearly outlines that the people, who all make up the Militia, have the right to bear arms. Notice they did not write rifles. They wrote Arms. As at the time civilians where expected to maintain weaponry so that if called they could be used as a defensive force. This does not limit the type or make of weaponry. However their has always been a cost factor that prevents any civlian from effectively owning military hardware. Now shall not be infringed clearly means the 2nd amendment should not be limited to what types of weaponry the people can own.
Now we as a society and agreed upon in the courts decided if a person has a unique quality that leads them to be at greater chance of harm that they do lose their right to arms. Such as people with previous convictions, mental illness, and domestic violence cases.
So the 2nd amendment does not limit what type or weaponry is about the people's right to keep the weaponry they desire, not in context to hunting.
Queue common jokes of
"my own nuclear weapon". Okay good luck getting the resources and logistics to make and maintain such a weapon.
"You're rifle is useless against modern military" Right just as they were with the IRA, Vietnam, Talibam, ISIS, and every other civlian gorilla force. If, and big if, the U.S citizens ever decided to revolt it would not be traditional warfare, it would be cells of operatives doing a gorilla warfare and likely using terror attacks. I do not ever see the U.S dropping bombs from planes onto American cities in this scenario unless a true dictator is in power. It's just absurd.
Also note, I do not want nor think a U.S civil war is going to happen or is a reality. I am just saying IF it were to occur that's the more realistic viewpoint than something like we are seeing in Ukraine right now.
If the people on this sub could read, they'd be very upset.
I have to say the second amendment is the most poorly worded, confusingly structured sentence in the history of the English language.
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 fuck is this shit? If you take the first and second sentence fragment along with the fourth, it makes sense. If you take just the third and fourth sentence fragments, it makes sense. But all four of them together is a cluster fuck.
It’s like “A well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” are just spitroasting the fuck out of “being necessary to the security of a free state”, and everyone’s having a good time, but then “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” walks in the room, says “ooh la la, is there room for one more?” and despite everyone else saying no, pulls out his excessively curved mushroom-like penis and tries to get “shall not be infringed” to give him a handjob.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy citizenry, the right of the people to eat eggs and bacon, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
I wish people would stop reading with an emphasis on the militia. The Bill of Rights is acknowledging the rights of the people. The people. It would be a little weird if the second amendment somehow was referring to the rights of the militia. The people are the militia. The people have the right to keep in bear arms. It's pretty simple.
It's an old Roman structure that maintains cause/effect ordering. If you swap the two parts and add "because" between you get a more normal sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state". Still a bit weird but it's at least readable.
Throw a "Therefore" right in the middle. Militia is necessary, THEREFORE the right of the people shall not be infringed.
You can also throw a "because" at the beginning. The issue is that in English we don't do the cause/effect thing using sentence structures so it makes no sense.
I’m not a gun nut or a flag waving 2A hardliner. But the British had already invented the breach loading rifle and used it in the American Revolutionary War. Breach loading rifles improved the rate of fire significantly from 2-3 rounds a minute (highly trained rifleman with a muzzle loader) to 6-8 rounds a minute which is quite substantial for 1780. In 1860 the union army replaced muskets with the Spencer repeating rifle which could fire 20 rounds per minute. And the technology for rifles improved exponentially from there. Not trying to justify anything or even defend 2A, but it seems a common misconception that they were just primitive rifles shooting so slowly and slow to reload.
Even a rifle firing 20 rounds a minute is absolutely torpid in comparison to modern semi-automatic weapons, it's safe to say that the framers had no idea how fast technology would advance even within 20 years of the founding, which is why they told us to rewrite the constitution to mold to the times, not the other way around.
The first machine gun was developed before the Revolutionary War. The idea that soldiers living during the Industrial Revolution Who pioneered new battle strategies and tactics that watched the world change in real time couldn't possibly anticipate advancements in military equipment is utter horse shit.
Predicting the future is much harder than predicting the past. Military technologies like the tank, the bomber, and the aircraft carrier were around for decades before they were used at scale in WW2. And once they were, they changed warfare in completely unanticipated ways that caught even the experts with their pants down. Imagining it and living it are completely different things.
You say that the machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War. But it's not at all obvious that something the size of a cannon is going to turn into an assault rifle. Just look at computers. They were invented during WW2, and for decades afterwards, even science fiction authors can't imagine the concept of a personal computer. And when they eventually do, do you think they have any idea what that ends up looking like in practice? Or how it changes day to day life?
People envisioned super intelligent robots we still don't have I'm not sure why you think a PC was so outlandish
You do know that the average modern semiautomatic rifle fire 45 rounds per minute with mag changes. Don’t get me wrong These rifles have much further range and are very advanced in comparison but torpid? Not so much. Were you thinking of fully automatic rifles which have been illegal in the us since 1986 ? Again I’m not really trying to support or justify anything here, just combating misinformation I see on both sides. But I’m no maga gun toting 2A conspiracy nut.
No only one person said to rewrite it. And they weren't even at the writing of it. Jefferson was to busy dicking around in france at the time.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress, stop being anti-gun libs
I imagine it may have also applied to a saber, but you don't see people defending the right to wear one of those.
I don't think anybody is seriously trying to restrict sabre ownership.
Because it's settled law. In Texas, illegal knives are described as knives with blades longer than 5.5 inches, along with swords. Still, swords are legal to carry if they are being used in historical demonstrations or ceremonies in which the sword is "significant to the performance of the ceremony."
In Texas? lol wow, I stand corrected.
They should probably update the text of their legal statutes on their website then.
To be fair, the constitution also enshrined the right of congress to issue letters of marque for privately owned warships to conduct commerce raiding, and did so before they even created the Bill of Rights.
The founders were absolutely fine with private citizens owning and operating weapons capable of laying siege to cities. To imply that they werent is disingenuous at best.
If people think values have changed, feel free to pursue an amendment clarifying the new position. Otherwise its a losing proposition.
The funny thing is there more to the 2nd A than just those few sentences. If you keep reading, I know it’s hard for MAGA, they explained what a militia is and who supplies the militia. Surprise surprise it’s the government. Maga thinks militia means a group of inbreds larping in the woods together. It’s basically what the national guard is now. Reading is fundamental.
Where? The second amendment is very short.
Source: The Bill of Rights
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
To be fair, people then, private citizens, owned warships and cannons. But only rich people/politicians.
Oh and since this is for state militias mention that first so no one can miss it.
TIL "the people" = "the states" Does this apply to all other amendments?
Suppose the constitution said: "A well-educated population being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Following your thought process, only well educated people would be allowed to read books according to the constitution.
It's pretty obvious that the first clause in the second amendment is meant to act as an explanation of why the right is necessary and not as a restriction on the right itself.
Okay, I'll explain this. First, common citizens were absolutely allowed to (and did) own canons, warships, and any other form of arm. Not just muzzle loaded muskets. And the Puckle gun already existed for decades (sort of like an early gatling gun). So, there's a good chance the founders knew there were repeating guns. Further, the well regulated militia line, which everyone attempts to bring up as a faulty refutation... They're saying that, because a militia is necessary, the people must be armed such that they can form one in the first place.
Oh... uhh.. ha... ha... so... funny. Yes, it's... po li tical hu mor....
I've said this before but it really stuck with me.
At basic training with the Army our first time firing a weapon we got this speech from the OC (Officer in Charge, for civilians this is an officer, usually Captain who doesn't yell at you, when you screw up he yells at his PLT SGT, who yells at his SGT, who yells at his CPL who then destroys you).
"Today you will begin your weapon training. These are not toys! These are not fun! These are weapons whose only function and design is to kill! To wound, murder and destroy the enemy! If me or my staff see anyone joking, laughing or not taking this seriously I and my staff with kick you off the range! If I see anyone pointing their weapon at anyone or anything you are not instructed to, I will personally ensure you are kicked out and on a bus and home today. Everyone in the Army is Infantry first so I do not care if you are a medic, accountant or a fucking dentist! You will handle these weapons in accordance to safety procedure at all times or else! Do you understand?!"
So when civilians say they have the right to bare arms it annoys me as they do not appreciate the gravity of what they are doing or the risk it involves.
Private citizens back then owned early gatling guns and full-on warships straped to the gills with cannons. Ben Franklin was aware of self loading firearms and just thought it was dope.
And it was never about guns but ARMS which means "tools of war" in latin so it also protects bombs, armor, swords and fortifications.
Lets not pretend that people from a diferent time were ignorant of change, if you enjoy sci-fi you are aware humans are capable of imagining vast amounts of it.
I'm very left, I support strong gun legislation, and I really dislike this argument.
Yeah, it's just for laughs, but it's really disingenuous. The gold standard for weapon power at the time the second was written was canons, specifically the broadside of a ship. Those weapons were in private hands, and if they weren't, we most likely would not have won the revolutionary war.
At some point, we decided (reasonably I think) that weapons of war do not belong in the hands of private citizens. We should have amended the Constitution at that time, but we didn't, and now it's a mess.
Curious what more gun legislation you think is needed and wouldn't be duplicative of the laws already on the books?
If the rest of the nation copied Hawaii, California, New York, and Massachusetts gun laws we'd see hundreds if not thousands less deaths per year. Just look at their laws, no open loaded carry in public is a big one, the road rage shootings common in Texas and Florida are extremely rare in states with proper laws, as one example.
What specific laws would you like to see copied or think make an actual impact?
Guess more specifically how would you also see those laws being applied. For example I believe New York has a ban on "assault weapons", when you apply this law to other states what do you do with the existing assault weapons already there? Do you just grandfather them all in? Make them give them up?
I assume we're talking about 100 MAGA Ton nuclear bombs?
So everyone here is afraid of a dictatorship/ end of democracy that would come with trumps second term while simultaneously wanting to disarm themselves? The coming election is precisely why the second amendment is vital to a democracy.
We won the Revolutionary War with muskets. Thus, in that time period, that would be a military-grade weapon.
Would a militia armed with AR15s beat the US military? Absolutely not. But it's the best thing we have without getting into tanks etc... Owning them should definitely be legal. And essentially what was intended for the 2nd Amendment, to hopefully help prevent a tyrannical government.
There are obviously many other factors, though, such as the military even being willing to shoot US citizens, etc. Which would never happen... also "A gun behind every blade of grass" is what really makes our country impenetrable from a foreign invasion.
I'm a Democrat, but wholeheartedly, I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Which anyone with common sense should be.
Also militias are state run in the second amendment, not people magnetically gathering together with ignorance and assault rifles identifying as a militia.
The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
Those guys assumed they were talking about a well regulated militia. That's why they said the second amendment was for a well regulated militia.
You realize we'll regulated in 1700s meant working order right? Not restricted
Well regulated is defined in Article 1
Maybe provide a little more detail then article 1. Article one of what? The constituition? What section it's 15 pages.
Suppose the constitution said: "A well-educated population being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Following your thought process, only well educated people would be allowed to read books according to the constitution.
This is why this interpretation of the second amendment doesn't work. It's pretty obvious what the purpose of the first part of that sentence is, it's a justification as to why the right specified is necessary, not imposing a restriction on that right. There's a reason why it says "the right of the people" and not "the right of the well regulated militia."
(Of course, this is also before you get into the fact that well regulated had a different definition at the time.)
Moderator removed comment
13d
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Originalist ?
I communed with our forefathers and they said 2a should give us the right to lease Bradleys. Forget extra rounds, ask for your Apache gunship from your senators today!
I think they're referring to the means necessary to keep the state free and secure.
Meaning tanks should be stocked at Walmart.
It also says "arms", not "firearms".
"So does having a well-regulated militia include regulating its guns?"
"Lol nah"
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
Key and Peele nailed it a while ago https://youtu.be/BDZ6ujYN610?si=TjihIAeQL714OHo0
The intention was to be able to revolt. Jefferson said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”they’d want citizens to have tanks and jets because they weren’t fans of government from the articles of confederation and their own revolution.
This is actually correct.
The 2nd was written concurrently with The Militia Act of 1792 which lists what arms you can have. A musket 25 balls, a powder horn and I think a bayonet.
The reference to militias in the 2nd is a reference to the Militia Act.
which lists what arms you can have
This is false. It lists the minimum that you're required by law to possess and maintain as a militia member. It's not identifying what you're allowed to have.
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
I still have a hard time believing that the founding fathers didn’t think weapons would ever improve. Things like the puckle gun already existed.
Besides, from what I can tell the idea behind the 2nd amendment was to keep citizens capable of defending themselves against governments, which would require them to have weapons on par with said government.
I think people citing the 2nd amendment are stupid for other reasons, but “the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen this” isn’t one of them.
All the "living document" people 😂.... Yeah and it takes a 2/3 majority to change. It's supposed to be an uphill climb. But there is a way, just gotta get the people on your side. Good luck
The amendment was just fine as written.
It took several college educated morons who didn't understand how commas worked to turn it into a worthless one.
Idk revolvers and repeating rifles were invented only shortly after most of the founders died, prototypes like that had been floating around in the early 1800s too. Semi automatics werent until late 1800’s but acting like they thought this was the only firearms people would have is disingenuous.
The line actually says that the arms should be equivalent to what a ‘grunt’ in the ‘normal military member ’ would use. So they actually did account for the future.
Now the question is, an air force pilot is a ‘normal military member,’ so shouldn’t we be able to buy fighter jets. 🤔
As the government’s weapons advanced, ours needed to as well. The whole idea is to be able to fight against a tyrannical regime. Can’t do that with single shot muskets these days
Of all the gun control arguments, this is one of the very few with no validity. There were already repeating rifles by the time the constitution was signed and the founding fathers werent stupid. The obvious evolution of the gun was already clear, they were gonna get more accurate, shoot faster, and shoot harder. If you showed George Washington a minigun he might be surprised by the exact numbers but he would not be at all surprised that our guns shoot real fast, real accurate, and real hard
I assume the idea was to enable people to fight against a possible war with England. Those were times when people with rifles could make a difference against an army.
I should be able to own an ar-15 because people that died centuries before the invention of the ar-15 said I could...
Why doesn’t 2A also give me the right to bear nuclear arms
My freedom is infringed
So why didn’t they specify muskets? It’s almost as if technology updates and improves over time, and they knew arms would change. They certainly didn’t anticipate the internet but the first amendment broadly applies to online speech
Imo It’s more about having the right to bring the same power against an aggressor as you could reasonably expect to be able to be brought against you.
Then the debate is what that reasonable expectation is. Given the proliferation of firearms in the US that would seem to mean AR’s and down.
And at the time, that was the most advanced and deadly weapon made by man.
No.
The argument I hate the most is that people have a right to guns because it's in the constitution. Not "people have a right to safety" or "we need to be able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government", both of which I can understand even if I don't agree with.
Just blind "it's written on this 200+ year old document, so I should get to have guns". Who cares that that document has been changed many times, like little things such as taking out that people are allowed to own other people, or allowing women to vote.
There's no way to discuss with people who have that as their stance, especially because you know they wouldn't change their stance if somehow we got an amendment passed to repeal the second amendment.
"Plus, everyone that owns a gun will be part of a well regulated militia, so this will never ever be a problem, especially near schools."
I say this all the time.
Also they lived in a time where there was no official army for the country, and it was all ACTUAL militias, not fat insecure white dudes taking their metal Viagra to Chipotle for IG views
It never states that you can own a gun. It's been interpreted to mean that...
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended.
Four ruffians break into my house.
“What the devil?"
As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot.
Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog.
I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot,
“Tally ho lads!”
The grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms.
Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.
He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
The best part of this story is….. home invasions never happen (unless you are in the drug trade).
My home has been invaded at least 3 times... I am not in the drug trade
Wow! The last time the DOJ did a study on home invasion (2015) they used a very wide ranging definition of ‘home invasion’, because they don’t actually have a category for it (it is so rare).
The DOJ defined a ‘home invasion’ as someone committing a crime in your home while armed. If uncle Jack gets drunk at your party and slaps aunt Jane, when the police arrest him for assault they find a razor in his shoe, they counted that as a ‘home invasion’ - even though you invited him in, even though you never saw the razor.
What they found was less than 30,000 per year. There are more than 100 million homes in the US. That means you have a .03% chance of it happening to you. You are more likely to be struck by lightning.
Then they looked specifically at the cases where three guys with ARs kick in the door and start shooting (what I would consider a home invasion). Every one of those was related to other crimes, with drugs at the top of the list.
Either you are incredibly unlucky (some people have been struck by lightning multiple times), or the drug trade was just too specific for you……
Should we clarify what well regulated means?
Nah, there’s now way someone would be dumb enough to think it means we want them to keep their guns clean
don't forget about that "well regulated militia" part...
everyone gun nut seems to ignore that part of the language.
Does ANYBODY think that we could any consensus on a new Constitution?
“… and even if it needs future revision, people are reasonable and this is a living document.”