• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    The second amendment absolutely would allow that to happen. To people purposefully misrepresenting what it says won’t.

    First, it says what it says because we need a militia to protect the nation, which was once true when an professional standing army wasn’t expected but no longer is.

    Second, the goal is for a well regulated militia. Even if we assume it still applies (it doesn’t, but let’s pretend), nothing about this is well regulated. Make sure people have training if you’re going to let people own firearms so freely.

    • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It wasn’t that a professional standing army “wasn’t expected” - in fact they were quite common at the time. Standing armies don’t tend to go unused, they make it easy for asshole politicians to pick stupid fights with other countries. Not having one was a deliberate choice we made to avoid such things, and for the most part it worked, for a little while at least.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wouldn’t say the were quite common. They weren’t unheard of, but only the major powers in the world could afford them. The US would be a nation of mostly farmers isolated from most of the developed world. There’s no reason they would have expected to become a world power. A militia, at the time, would seem to be the reasonable expectation for such a nation for the foreseeable future.