“Well regulated” in the 1700s sense or “well regulated” in the “I think the government should have direct control over the militia that is supposed to violently fight the government” sense? Because imo one seems more viable than the other.
The second amendment was never intended to let the people overthrow the government. It was intended to serve instead of a standing army for the defense of the republic. Madison didn’t want military power centralized in the Federal government.
Ehhh the federalist papers make it pretty clear that the second amendment and the aforementioned militias were for threats both foreign and domestic. Plus, considering the whole “starting a revolution against what was at the time ‘their own’ country” thing alone I think they recognized the possibility that they may need to do it again in the future.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and all that.
Not only did he not want it centralized, it was really uncommon and expensive to have a standing professional army at the time. The US was a new nation, and it was pretty poor. The idea they’d be able to have a federal professional military, at least one large enough that you don’t need supplemental militias, would probably be laughed at.
So many people expecting large formations of armed Americans to just storm the capital, talk about brain washed by Hollywood. We’re the French, Dutch, etc. Resistance baby!
It was a powerful lie to convince most gun owners that a “right to a well-regulated militia” meant being able to individually own a gun and never be trained to use it or organize.
I imagine ICE would be less openly hostile when there would be a legitimate risk of getting shot by a vigilante.
Not saying it justifies having the amount of guns Americans have, but since they already have them they should be used for the reason they have them, to oppose a tyrannical government.
I’m saying you need training and organizing in addition to the guns.
And to answer your last point, personally I’d be more in favour of citizen’s weapons depots rather than privately owned guns for the murder/suicide reasons you mention.
I don’t think it’s a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of ability. Militant action requires a lot more than simply owning a gun.
Heretic!
If those gun toting hicks could read. They’d be very upset.
It’s almost as if some form of militia, possibly a well regulated one, would also be necessary.
“Well regulated” in the 1700s sense or “well regulated” in the “I think the government should have direct control over the militia that is supposed to violently fight the government” sense? Because imo one seems more viable than the other.
The second amendment was never intended to let the people overthrow the government. It was intended to serve instead of a standing army for the defense of the republic. Madison didn’t want military power centralized in the Federal government.
Ehhh the federalist papers make it pretty clear that the second amendment and the aforementioned militias were for threats both foreign and domestic. Plus, considering the whole “starting a revolution against what was at the time ‘their own’ country” thing alone I think they recognized the possibility that they may need to do it again in the future.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and all that.
-Thomas Jefferson
Not only did he not want it centralized, it was really uncommon and expensive to have a standing professional army at the time. The US was a new nation, and it was pretty poor. The idea they’d be able to have a federal professional military, at least one large enough that you don’t need supplemental militias, would probably be laughed at.
most people who care are also intelligent enough to realize that just opening fire is a losing move
They also understand OPSEC. Can’t carry out orders if the energy knows what you are planning
So many people expecting large formations of armed Americans to just storm the capital, talk about brain washed by Hollywood. We’re the French, Dutch, etc. Resistance baby!
The American people missed out on a golden opportunity to do something really funny about a month ago…
You know what we missed out on? a chance to assassinate Putin when he visited Alaska last year to get some head from El Taco.
It was a powerful lie to convince most gun owners that a “right to a well-regulated militia” meant being able to individually own a gun and never be trained to use it or organize.
I imagine ICE would be less openly hostile when there would be a legitimate risk of getting shot by a vigilante.
Not saying it justifies having the amount of guns Americans have, but since they already have them they should be used for the reason they have them, to oppose a tyrannical government.
What are the guns for then? I thought the second amendment was to fight the government? But now you’re saying being armed is not enough?
Why even let people arm themselves, if all they do with the weapons is school shootings?
I’m saying you need training and organizing in addition to the guns.
And to answer your last point, personally I’d be more in favour of citizen’s weapons depots rather than privately owned guns for the murder/suicide reasons you mention.