No, it wasn’t. That’s bullshit the Republicans made up to justify it still applying. It’s about defending the nation from attackers. At the time of writing, militias were the common way militaries were formed for most nations. Only the most prosperous had standing professional armies. The brand new US was not expecting this, so militias were seen as the only way to defend itself. This is no longer true, so the second amendment, which bases itself on this premise, is not valid.
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.
I still defend people having the right to own firearms, but I also support restrictions. People should have to be trained in it’s safe operation, maintenance, and storage, for example. They should also have to prove they have a safe place to store it. There are a lot of ways we can still protect people and allow for firearm ownership and usage.
I think you’re forgetting the fact that the founding fathers were revolutionaries. They very obviously felt the need for the people to have the tools to depose a government if necessary. However, they did not foresee the US becoming a superpower, or the extent to which weapons technology has progressed.
I read that to say that the right to bear arms is only so when a well regulated militia is needed to defend a free state. Given that it’s no longer the case, the right to bear arms does not exist- according to the 2nd amendment!
It’s not void or irrelevant, it has infact predicted and enshrined into law that there is no right to bear arms anymore.
It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I’d argue it’s pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it’s how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren’t the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.
However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That’s where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.
No, it wasn’t. That’s bullshit the Republicans made up to justify it still applying. It’s about defending the nation from attackers. At the time of writing, militias were the common way militaries were formed for most nations. Only the most prosperous had standing professional armies. The brand new US was not expecting this, so militias were seen as the only way to defend itself. This is no longer true, so the second amendment, which bases itself on this premise, is not valid.
I still defend people having the right to own firearms, but I also support restrictions. People should have to be trained in it’s safe operation, maintenance, and storage, for example. They should also have to prove they have a safe place to store it. There are a lot of ways we can still protect people and allow for firearm ownership and usage.
I think you’re forgetting the fact that the founding fathers were revolutionaries. They very obviously felt the need for the people to have the tools to depose a government if necessary. However, they did not foresee the US becoming a superpower, or the extent to which weapons technology has progressed.
I read that to say that the right to bear arms is only so when a well regulated militia is needed to defend a free state. Given that it’s no longer the case, the right to bear arms does not exist- according to the 2nd amendment!
It’s not void or irrelevant, it has infact predicted and enshrined into law that there is no right to bear arms anymore.
Exactly. That seems to be the only reasonable way to read it to me. I don’t know why it’s never been contested on this premise in court.
Because historic context is relevant in court cases, really easy to show 200+ years of it not being interpreted that way
Its a very poorly written sentence, likely on purpose to force interpretation by judges
It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I’d argue it’s pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it’s how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren’t the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.
However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That’s where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.
The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.