I always thought the 2nd was so the government had a militia to call upon should we be invaded.
The second amendment states “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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It gives the states the ability to have their own local military as well as private citizens the right to own weapons. Both of these were things the colonial power had outlawed prior to the revolution. The idea was to explicitly list things the previous tyrannical government had done to ensure the new government could not do the same thing. Now language and technology changes which leads to the current debate on gun rights in the USA.
should we be invaded
More to protect against native American raids in response to continued encroachment and slave rebellions. These are what militias are effective against.
A militia doesn’t stand a chance against an organized european army, the revolution plainly proved that as the US was losing until they organized the Continental army and put Washington in charge.
Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn’t about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.
“Bear arms” means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.
Owning a gun does little against tyranny.
But a state militia does.
That’s what it actually meant.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
If not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.
That comma is a point of much debate.
That’s not what theyre for. Thats the thing we tell strangers. The guns are for shooting slaves.
“well regulated militia” means “a militia the state approves of”
Thats what i said.
no i know. this is just something i have to explain frequently to people who bought the NRA propaganda
“shall not be infringed” means the federal government has no authority over that right.
It’s another thing the states were meant to handle. The standing army and us imperialism is an extension of this failure of following the constitution here imho too
everything really went to shit when Andrew Jackson just broke the constitution because he hated the Cherokee so much
Or do we really just not the militia part strongly enough? Should states themselves have much stronger rights in creating their own independent militaries? Should California - The State of California political entity - have the right to build the bomb?
nah scotus said the militia dont count no more
I have to watch it every time.
Advocating is not illegal; inciting is.
Unless you’re an oligarch of course. Then you can J6, Doge, destroy half the Whitehouse, etc.
Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).
Love it or hate it, them’s the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.
It really depends.
Merely saying that the administration needs to be guillotined isn’t illegal because its protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment.
However, such rhetoric loses such protection when it starts to manifest a particularity. So, saying “Guillotine Republicans because they fucking deserve it” is protected. Statements like “Guillotine Republican X at his address Y at Z p.m.” are not.
Jan6 be there, will be wild
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,
if you fail, it is.
Citizens united made it probable that foreign governments would act through intermediaries to pay for US policy against the American peoples interests
Here’s a neat and totally unrelated random website I found!
Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.
Sorry, I don’t wanna get accused of being a “CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America” and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.
Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes…
Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: “Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?”
This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.
Weapons don’t know and don’t care what you do with them. A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution. A strike of a knife while cutting cabbage is the same as a strike while chopping up your local equivalent of a secret policeman.
One could argue a hammer is meant to facilitate acts of rebellion but in reality it doesn’t know jack shit what it’s meant for, it’s just happy to be there.
Also it’s legal to own weapons/illegal to advocate for violent overthrow in many, many countries. It’s the intentions that matter.
I think what OP is referring to is that many supporters of “gun rights” like to use the argument that the second amendment is key to the freedom of America because an armed populace cannot be controlled by an authoritarian government. I don’t particularly care for that argument, but if you run with it, it would make sense that the right of the populace to organize armed rebellion is just as important as their right to own and carry weapons.
I wonder what would happen if the second amendment was about proper organization of that “militia” instead. It’s often the deciding factor between success and failure when it comes to rebellion, even when you’re outgunned.
If I kick a man to near death do I get charged with assault with deadly weapon for wearing shoes?
Shoes and hammers/knives/other heavy blunt (or not) objects are kinda different, also I don’t know your local laws, so maybe you will?
Difference is most countries are aimed at self-defence… as in against home invaders and such…
The US 2nd amendment seems to be intended for “protection against a tyrannical government”…
I can’t speak for every country but that’s not the case here. As long as you aren’t breaking laws nobody cares if it’s meant for defending against home invaders or collecting dust in a collector’s storage.
Here’s a mad nerd sniping problem:
Imagine we took the 2nd Amendment completely literally. It is now unconstitutional to prohibit the ownership of any weapon, no matter the scale. Owning even thermonuclear weaponry is legal.
There hasn’t exactly been a lot of free market innovation in the field of nuclear weapons design. There hasn’t been a whole lot of competition in the field. And the government is optimizing for security, safety, and effectiveness, but not cost. But imagine if we did make it legal for private citizens to own nukes. Just how cheaply could they be made, if we applied the normal principals of mass production to them? Would they always be the playthings of the ultra wealthy, or could some Henry Ford of hydrogen bombs put a nuke in every garage?
Lmao if everyone had a nuke, me and my older brother would’ve nuked each other the moment we landed in JFK and got our green cards…
Shhhhhh stop trying to bring logic into this…
deleted by creator
That doesn’t sounds like an overthrow, more like an intended part of the system.
Overthrow would be like:
“Alright folks lets delete the senate and the electoral college, slaps podium in the house of representatives lets rename this this thing ‘Parliament’ and have proportional representation”
deleted by creator
The 2a is so that the government can press you (and the weapon you bought) into service.
The clearest examples of this is when the government pressed citizens (and their weapons) into service to shoot tax protestors during Shay’s Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion.
The government didn’t want a standing army hanging around thinking about coups and figured they could min-max their way around it with militias.
The closest modern analog is The National Guard. A 2a written today with the original intent would allow The National Guard to keep a rifle at home. And there would be no standing army.
