• Schadrach
    link
    English
    31 month ago

    In the context and time it was written, this means something closer to “armed citizenry trained to handle their weapons and how to respond to a threat” and not “restricting weapons to the national guard” or “restricting weapons based on the number of total rounds they can hold” or something like that.

    I suspect most of the pro-gun folks wouldn’t be that angry at the idea of requiring range time and local emergency drills as opposed to the usual attempts to restrict 2A.

    • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      In the context of when it was written, the authors didn’t believe having a standing army was a good idea, machine guns either didn’t exist or would melt after any sustained use, and artillery was meant to either break walls or make infantry nervous that they might end up being one of the few hit.

      The ship has sailed on all of those and many other assumptions people had in those days, which makes me think that maybe it’s time for a new constitution. And maybe codify some of the gentlemen’s agreement stuff and harden the system against those who just want to ruin it from within because it’s more profitable for some if governments don’t help people meet their needs.