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.
I was told it was in case of a tyrannical government
L. O. L.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
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.
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.
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:
I still think it’s important to enshrine the people’s right to self-preservation and self-defense.
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.
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.
gatling guns weren’t invented until the 1860s
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
The ostensible impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, including the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929, and the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933
abused by tyrants
hmmmmm
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?
You’re correct that it has nothing to do with militia anymore.
It’s because the Supreme Court ruled that it has nothing to do with militia and everything to do with letting everybody have whatever guns they want.
That’s a relatively modern viewpoint. It’s the result of huge amounts of money being spent to campaign in favor of letting anybody have all the guns they want.
As a result, the United States has more gun violence and more gun murders than pretty much any other developed country. It’s not even close.
This is the correct answer.
What are the statistics for people successfully using a gun to actually defend themselves? I never see them mentioned. I’m genuinely curious, because from where I’m sitting, they seem to cause more problems than they ever solve.
I imagine defining what counts as “self defense” is difficult. A lot of the gun violence is justified as “self defence” (whether that is accurate is a different story), whether it’s trying protecting family/friends, your property, or yourself. It’s a lot easier to come up with a statistic of how many people got shot by a gun.
And you are correct that more guns is correlated with more gun-related violence, there are plenty of studies on this for many different parts of the world. When I was in middle school, we learned about this in geography class, with data points in Australia, the US, China, and various countries in Europe, and there was a very strong relationship between number of guns and the cases of gun violence!
Incredibly small compared to the amount of gun violence. Where you are sitting has a pretty accurate view
The country was founded on armed rebellion, and the framers recognized it might be necessary again in the future, so they enshrined the right to an armed populace almost immediately.
There was also the very real possibility the Native Americans, the French, the Spanish, the Portugese, or some combination thereof would invade.
does that apply today?
I don’t recall claiming it did
Its called a follow up question
Are you 14? Because it seems like you are posting here for the sake of picking a fight, rather than understanding anything.
The people responding to you are explaining the commonly accepted rationale for and history of the second amendment in an attempt to help you understand it. You seem to be taking this as full throated support of it, which I doubt many people here have.
are you american?
It’s a rhetorical question being asked in bad faith. Stop playing games and state your point, if you have one.
Ok ill restate my question.
whats the point of the 2nd amendment
is there a risk of invasion from france etc?
Have you tried stating your opinion one way or the other, since your questions clearly indicate you have some thoughts of your own on the matter, instead of sealioning people with “just asking questions”?
There is lots of cons, but one pro in my mind came when China was brutalizing the pro-democracy protesters. At one point some university students made homemade bows and arrows. That was a joke to the Chinese police and military. If the citizens all had real weapons, the Chinese may have approached the situation differently. Like what happened during the Bundy standoff in the US.
It’s a pretext for a militarized police force and shoot first ask questions maybe later or not idk policy.
