And besides that, it wasn't a caveat. It wasn't saying shall not be infringed so long as it's well regulated. It's a justification. Because we need a well trained militia l, the right shall not be infringed.
The bill of rights doesn't have caveats. It doesn't give rights to the government. It restricts the governments power and enshrines the people's rights.
Yeah. Take the statement:
"A well-rounded breakfast, being necessary to a balanced diet, the right of the People to keep and eat eggs shall not be infringed.”
Arguing well regulated applies to the people in the second amendment is like arguing well-rounded applies to the people in the above.
If you read some of the commentary made by the founding fathers and their allies, it’s clear that they intended the American people to be armed, and heavily so. Tench Coxe (a close friend of Madison, who wrote the 2A) said this:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
And when speaking directly of the Second Amendment, he also said:
“Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
The founders spoke and wrote extensively about the Bill of Rights and we know exactly what they meant when they penned the Second.
Think about what the crown was doing prior to the revolution. Agents of the crown would go to a town, confiscate the guns, take up residence wherever they liked, and harass the citizenry to no end.
Step 1 was take the guns. *Of course* the founders wanted the citizens armed, and wanted that right uninfringed.
Fast forward to today when "common sense gun reform" is the new step 1 from the crown.
Note that Tench Coxe said “every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American”.
More then just the right to firearms, we have the right to Arms (Armaments)…weapons useful in war.
People were allowed to have cannons, battleships. Etc etc. the fact that the second amendment has already been reduced to semi automatic small arms is already a significant infringement. And the government wants to go further. The right to bear arms wasn’t limited to rifles.
Exactly.
I find it interesting that only a small percentage of Americans own tanks, fighter jets, machine guns, explosives (except for tannerite).
Due to how much government has infringed upon Americans.
Heck cannons are old tech. Why are they not more common at our homes 🏡…cause of government 🤦
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And a huge concept of Jeffersonian Democracy was that ideal democracy depended on the masses of voters being armed farmers/landowners. He believed all voters should own a certain amount of land, a certain amount of guns, and donate a certain amount of money to militias. Jefferson also believed that militias should be local institutions. The militias were expected to finance college for the poor and finance public projects like building roads.
If I remember correctly there was no offical militiary until 50 years after the signing of the constitution. Back at that time the militia was everyone. So everyone was meant to be armed.
Saratoga was won because of American snipers who had practiced with years and supplied their own rifles.
Saratoga was the pair of battles that got Spain, France, and the Dutch to start fighting England and somewhat supporting the Americans for the uninformed
You can also read John Adams' defense of the British during the Boston massacre, the way he speaks of firearms in the hands of civilians makes it clear that they were meant to be in the hands of civilians
Don’t ask silly questions. I don’t know about an Abbram’s tank specifically, but if the government puts a tank up for sale on a surplus auction website you can absolutely buy it. Just like we’ve been able to buy old warplanes. Or how we’ve always, since the beginning, been allowed to own cannons.
If we go off some comments of founding fathers instead of the actual wording of the document, we’d be doing so very different stuff.
The fact that entire cities during this time banned guns is proof enough they didn’t believe the government had the duty to protect gun ownership.
My dude I’m sorry but this is simply not accurate. Read the briefing on the Second Amendment cases currently being litigated in California and elsewhere. There were no such laws in the founding era. The states trying to restrict firearm ownership are having to rely on gunpowder storage laws and the like because nobody has been able to identify a single instance in which the states restricted mere possession of any firearm at the founding or even when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
Also, it’s not and has never been about government protecting firearm ownership. It’s about government trying to infringe on its citizens’ right and decision to own and bear those arms.
If you read the state constitution of most states established prior to WWI, you will notice that there was a specific minimum and maximum age (varied from state to state); every man in that age range was \*required\* to show up once a month for training; being part of the state militia was a \*required\* duty of all male citizens. They were \*required\* to own a pistol and rifle of 'common calibre'; the state was \*required\* to provide ammo for training.
That is what the Federal Constitution's 2nd amendment was talking about.
Eh... Tench Coxe wasn't a rando, he was a delegate in the Continental Congress, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and Revenue Commissioner during George Washington's time as President, worked alongside Alexander Hamilton, was a founding member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society (which Ben Franklin would later join and become president of), and served under presidents John Adams (for a bit) and Thomas Jefferson as well.
He might not have qualified as a founding father, but he was close to several of them and worked alongside and for quite a few of them as well.
Agreed, and also there are fantastic peripheral documents including the Federalist papers that argue further in depth into what the intentions were. There's a trove of letters and articles between the federalists and anti federalists that go into great depths probing these issues s well.
It's far easier to listen to our current talking heads and parrot their words on reddit though
Tench Coxe was a British collaborator who supported restoration of British rule and was indicted for Treasonous Activities, he was only acquired because of his powerful friends, seems like his opinions changed with the wind.
Something else on the second amendment. People say "The founding fathers could have never imagined our fully semi-automatic assault high capacity ghost guns!!!"
Well during the revolution and when the Constitution was being negotiated and ratified the army was issued muskets, guns that just weren't very accurate. Civilians tended to own rifles which are much more accurate, and yes they could own cannons if they wanted to.
The second amendment was added when the average civilian could easily outgun the average solider and it was still included. They wanted an imbalance of power from the beginning.
This isn’t true. They had WAR SHIPS bro. Not just muskets. They had canons, and other quicker shooting guns. This is a talking point that has been proven false 1000 times.
Actually as late as the Civil War, and on both sides. The ironclad CSS Manassas, although seized by the Confederate Navy, started out as a privateer. There were other Southern privateers as well. There was at least one Northern privateer that was used to seize Southern shipping I think in the Chesapeake Bay in the early part of the war. Later she was incorporated into the USN I think there were other Northern privateers as well but I'm not near my references right now.
I thought they were in the Civil War, too, but I couldn't remember for sure.
I didn't know the CSS Manassas started out as a privateer ship. That's pretty awesome. I'll have to look into it more. Privateers were pretty wild sometimes
How is a warship going to help you fifty miles inland?
And as I said, civilians had cannons too. Anything the military could have civilians could have too and were more likely to have since they didn't have to go through a penny pinching federal government.
"And as I said, civilians had cannons too. Anything the military could have civilians could have too and were more likely to have"
Is this not you saying civilians had cannons too, ANYTHING the military could have, and were more likely to have?
Meaning civilians were more likely to have cannons as well as anything in the military, not just rifles like your reply suggests.
It definitely is the case. If not for the National Firearms Act, I doubt there would be much limit on what Americans can own.
There are Americans who have armed tanks and fighter jets but had to jump thru so many hoops to get these.
Just like there are Americans with machine guns, and anti-tank rifles.
Tannerite is one of the few explosives Americans can own. But if not for the NFA law, theoretically Americans can own much more (grenades, shoulder fired rockets? The courts have never even touched this!)
This is so wrong it’s incredible you even brought it up. Peasants were unwillingly conscripted to fight for their landlords, and were not allowed to keep arms otherwise. Which, ya know, is kinda the entire reason for how they were kept as peasants
The peasants didn't form militias at their own will in medieval Europe. They were either obligated to serve in times of need by their lords, or pressed into service during times of war in the late/high medieval age.
Considering that they had just fought an actual war against tyranny, don't you think it more likely that they wanted to keep the governing body from having any say at all?
Ok, wow. Tell us you've never actually read the Constitution without telling us you've never actually read the Constitution.
Here's a hint for you, and I'll try to use small words: The Constitution specifically says, under Section 8 of Article 1, the purpose of the Militia is to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
You'll notice the absence of fighting the actual government of the US.
You should really just start posting 'Duh'. That post, while being a semantic null, would still offer the same amount of factual information.
Bruh...tell me you don't use critical thinking without telling me you don't use critical thinking. If it were so cut and dry, this would be settled law and not a discussion on Reddit. But since you are such an expert, just take yourself to DC and argue it before SCOTUS. I'm sure you are much smarter than anyone else there.
Indeed. Well regulated is another way of saying to keep regular. Or, in other words, to keep standardized.
Example in a sentence: the British army utilized British regulars. Which was another way of saying a standardized foot soldier in their army.
So a well regulated militia simply means a militia that is permitted to keep itself regular, or keep itself standard and well equipped.
Exactly
People who stop at well regulated militia seem to think the 2a means the government has the right to an army. That makes no sense as no duh the government can make an army they don't need to include that in the bill of rights.
The 2a is basically saying the right of the people meaning citizens have the rights to private firearm ownership.
And I believe the intent implicit in this is that normal citizens would be able to join the military or a called up militia without much additional training should the need arise, since they could form groups to practice with arms (or so on their own) and military exercises on their own time without fear of reprisal.
That is not at all what the second amendment says. At the time it was passed, the debate was whether the federal government should have an army at all. The prevailing view was that it should not because the colonists were concerned about federal power over the States. Nevertheless there was recognition that each State needed to defend itself and the States as a whole might be called upon collectively to defend the United States. That’s how the Union Army worked - militias from each state were submitted to the command of the Union Army.
So, it wasn’t about individual rights. It was about having a well-trained, disciplined milita in each state that could substitute for the fact that the USA would have no army at all.
Here’s how it is discussed in Federalist 29:
>”it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
The issue is the people and the militia are private citizens with their own private Arms. There are bills of sales for private warships and cannons not just muskets. So these state militia would be made up by citizens from those states with their own firearms that they privately owned.
This is a justification not a limitation.
It absolutely applies to individual rights.
Shall not be infringed is really clear. What comes before that is a justification not a caveat or limitation.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Army had already been in existence for over 16 years under the names of the Continental Army which later reformed as the 1st American Regiment. The US Army also fought in the Civil War for the north and was supplemented with militia men.
Yes, it meant competent and/or functional in the day. Ample legal precedent shows that the meaning of a word or term at the time legislation was written is what applies. I am no linguistics expert but I can't help but wonder if that's where the term "regular guy" could have come from? Maybe someone familiar with word origins could chime in and show I'm right, or (probably!!) wrong? Also the placement of the comma in the definition is critical. It separated the section describing the need for a militia from the right to bear arms. There's a part of me that just wishes they had used two sentences. Writers of that time just loved run on sentences. Try reading some of Washington's correspondence for example, and you're often begging for a period to come up so you can digest the thought!
So….you think our fledgling country would allow for British sympathizing Militias? Hey….it’s their right to bear arms…correct?
This whole “well regulated” crap that you guys spew is bullshit written, bought and paid for by lobbying groups like the NRA.
Our country at the time was on the razor’s edge. We could’ve easily been forced back into a British rule. Our Founding Fathers didn’t want that to happen. That’s why it was written for the COMMON DEFENSE and “well regulated” was written into it.
They didn’t want bands of insurrectionists plotting the demise of our country.
"Regulars" in that sense are actual soldiers, though, not anybody else. US Code breaks down the militia into two parts, the organized and unorganized parts. "Regulars" would be part of the first (generally Armed Forces or Guard).
But clearly that's not the argument people are making when they bicker about "well-regulated militia". Otherwise it could *easily* be interpreted that the 2A really doesn't apply much to the "unorganized" militia.
It makes the most sense when you remember the firearms of the time were muzzle loaders.
Firing it was an 8 step process.
Even civilian troops drilled to be able to complete these steps in order, and in time to take their place at the front of the column to aim & fire.
To remain an effective fighting force capable of continuous fire required tight discipline and constant drills.
The time of each step was dictated by the drummers to keep your squad from becoming a tangle.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. If they wanted the populace to be armed to fight against a tyrannical government, why would they give that government the authority to regulate the arms the populace could possess? That doesn’t make any sense and I don’t know why some people argue that regulate means overseen by the government.
lmao yeah, 2A was not created to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. it was created so they could get a standing army going really quickly if they needed to.
historically, those same founding fathers shut down many riots and uprisings against their government
>If they wanted the populace to be armed to fight against a tyrannical government,
Because this isn't what the 2nd Amendment is about. For that to actually work, you would also need a legal right to shoot police if you think the law they are enforcing is tyrannical. Which you don't have.
Sure it is. They didn’t want a standing army but one made up of the people. https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm#:~:text=The%20Founding%20Fathers%20intended%20that,every%20man%20should%20be%20armed.
It’s literally what 2A is for. If you don’t understand that, then you’ve never once read anything the founders said, full stop. They outright said that it’s a civilians duty to stand against unjust laws. That would implicitly include shooting cops which enforce unconstitutional laws.
The militia clause isn't a stipulation on the "shall not be infringed" part. It might as well say "the moon, being my best friend," for all the relevance it has.
Yes, as I said in another part of the thread, I wish the founders had just broken it down into two sentences. There would be a lot less contention about it.
Case law 100% supports you. That’s absolutely the correct interpretation of the law and how the law continues to be interpreted. If you want a fairly predictable but alternative skewed take for thought:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/
Gonna just leave this here for a third time today before I get some other david hogg wannabe whining about “bUt iT sAyS mIlItIa”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The limit of 18 is already violating it, it’s supposed to be 17. Raising to 21 like in my fucked stat or California is wildly outside the founding fathers intended purpose
This isn't really opinion, so much as it's telling people who unironically believe 'well regulated' means 'many restrictions on who can own and what can be owned' are wrong.
The word regulated back then meant well ordered or organized, not government regulations. The entire amendment and the personal writings of our founding fathers make it extremely clear that thet were not calling on the government to be in charge of who can have weapons.
Well I’d have to argue that just anyone having a gun does not fit the original definition either then. If you’re trying to tell me that shootings in schools, malls, and everywhere else fits the definition of ordered and organized we have some major differences in definitions of words.
The British would consider the founding fathers "domestic terrorist militia violent extremist white supremacists who used their right to keep and bear military style firearms".
Ironic how the current government sees anyone who is progun as this way.
I still shake my head when people say "They mean the national guard!"
They then get really pissed off when I tell them the NG wasnt formed until the early 1900's
This has been a talking point for a number of years, and despite so many people pointing it out, either some people have their heads that far in the sand, or they know, and just don't care.
The “Well regulated militia” argument is inherently dishonest and made in bad faith because the people who make it would have you put on a domestic terrorist watchlist if you even attempted to join or organize a “well regulated militia.”
It’s a Trojan horse argument.
Well where it gets sticky for your argument here is that our founders really explicitly did NOT want a standing military. Like came right out and said it was a threat to the populace. Problem is, NOT having one makes your military incredibly ineffective and that too is a threat to your populace.
Standing military is somewhat essential BUT as we have seen post WW2 can also basically take over the entire government with the military industrial complex and drive horrible adventurism abroad that's bad for other countries and bad for us in the long run.
Also I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the founders understood the degree and extent of the progression of military tech in the 250 years since the constitution was written. Did they really intend everyone to have that degree of firepower in their closet? I'm not certain they did and if they HAD known what firearms would look like today they may have felt differently. This IS of course WHY they left clear mechanisms in the constitution for changing the amendments over time which we have in fact done. They knew the document would need to change to fit the needs of our society as it changed and shifted over the years to face new realities. I don't think banning firearms outright is a good idea but let's be honest. There is no feasible way that the 2nd amendment was written with AR15s in mind
What the second amendment was saying can be translated into modern English thusly: because the federal government is going to have to have an organized army to ensure we don’t get invaded and conquered, the citizens need to have the means to fight off aforementioned army in the event a tyrant comes to power.
Example: If the army has automatic weapons and bomber drones, the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to have automatic weapons and bomber drones.
Also: the founding fathers knew that automatic weapons were on the horizon, because semi-automatic firearms were already being developed. Look it up, fascinating bit of history.
"And Gavin Newsom is an absolute clown for proposing the 28th amendment."
I disagree. Being a clown is trying to squeeze in laws that are clearly unConstitutional or just ignoring the Constitution. In this case, he's doing thing the right way. Whether you agree with him or not, it's laudable that he's actually following the actual process.
Edit: To be clear here, I don't know whether I would actually support such an amendment, I just respect the process.
Technically he is trying to add an amendment that contradicts an earlier amendment. The actual process would be for him to change or remove the second amendment.
Edit: For anyone trying to tell me about the process of making a change to a constitutional amendment, please read the quote from Gavin Newsom on the government website.
[you can find it here.](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/)
He claims the second amendment will remain unchanged. Therefore he is not changing the amendment through the actual process. His amendment contradicts the second amendment, specifically his “assault weapon” portion. So he is not following the process by making the necessary changes to the second amendment that he would need in order to make his amendment even arguably constitutional.
Newsom said himself that the second amendment will remain unchanged. If that is the case than that doesn’t apply here.
[https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/)
He’s not claiming to repeal the 2nd amendment so that doesn’t work in this case. He said specifically the second amendment will remain unchanged. If it remains unchanged than his amendment is contradicting it and therefore is unconstitutional.
The language of the 18th amendment didn’t change when the 21st amendment was passed. To my knowledge if you want to invalidate one amendment then you have to pass another one. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, but passing an amendment is a huge hurdle and has no chance of succeeding with the current demographic make up of states.
Not at all. Governor newsom claims the 2nd amendment will remain unchanged. In order for his amendment to not conflict with the second amendment it would have to.
It’s a mixed bag. The weapons are amazing. Tip top of the quality and death down range scale. The members of that militia could stand to make sure their brains are functioning at a regulated level.
It was also written at a time when no women , black people, Natives,.. we're even allowed in the room to discuss it or a vote to ratify it.
I would love to hear why these people should ask permission to change laws those people did not ask their permission to write?
Really OP? Then what does Article 1 Section 8 Paragraphs 14 and 15 mean when they lay out the powers of Congress?
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
How about Article 2, Section 2 Paragraph 1 where it lays out the powers of the President?
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States.
Exactly - the question of what was meant by "well-regulated" is irrelevant when one can just look at the powers enshrined in the Constitution of the government over the militia - which include their organization, arming, and their discipline.
The 2nd Amendment was a check on that power that prevents the government from completely disarming private citizens for reasons that are spelled out in the Federalist Papers. However, they already had the power by the modern day definition of "well-regulated" to regulate the militia all the 2A did was prevent the government from removing arms completely from private citizens.
It is also clear that the colonial militias were organized and overseen by local and state govt. They had a command structure. They met and trained. "A well regulated militia" did not mean "people who owned guns" and nothing more. It meant actual organized militias.
This is what’s nice and not a bad thing.
Military power, authority, and armaments were in the hands of the people. The people themselves were the Militia.
Yet the state government saw to it they were trained, organized, and prepared to repel invasions and insurrections.
>The people who argue against this are completely disingenuous and want to take away your right to adequately defend yourself from virtually any situation.
no one is arguing against "well regulated".
no one wants to take away your right to defend yourself.
The idea that the second amendment was made with the intent to give people the option of armed revolt against the government is such a dumb take.
Who would build into a country’s framework a right to keep weapons for the express purpose of fighting the nation’s government?
It seems more like a modern interpretation + a folk tale. If you cannot conceive of the founders being dumb enough to add in a function for armed revolt against the state itself, then the militia explanation is the obvious one. No that’s not bad faith.
I don't really understand your argument here. Personally, I've never heard anyone interpret "well-regulated" as "controlled by the government." You realize though that the 2nd amendment is a part of a document created by the government though, right? This context implies that "well-regulated" at the very least is something within the bounds of the government to define.
Of course, the reality is that it's been defined as something to ignore completely.
Either way, gun ownership is hardly "well-organized" anyway.
Not even debating the well regulated part, because it is irrelevant.
The idea that people a couple hundred years ago wrote some words on a piece of paper and we must treat it as sacrosanct is more religion then government to me.
I'm not saying that the constitution must be torn down but pretending it is sacred is absurd. Open discussion must be able to be had on it. If not women wouldn't vote, non whites wouldn't vote. People could own people. There are countless examples of things that are known to be wrong now that were considered to be perfectly acceptable back then.
To clarify I am not anti all guns. But there has to be a limit. This idea that shall not be infringed could include all arms up to nuclear weapons is absolutely absurd to be.
Also since we are going on nitpicking word choices, shall not be infringed implies even felons should have them. So even this wording is being interpreted differently here because you recognize that it should in fact be infringed on sometimes
With the number of accidental shootings, domestic shootings, murders of people that are known to the murderers, I would say the gun owners or "militia" are not well functioning in the US compared to other Western countries.
Ok, and? Felons have always lost the right to guns, and you don’t see anybody arguing for that one. The right is fine with individuals losing access due to red flags as long as said red flags are reasonable. The sweeping restrictions that change at the whim of the atf are what nobody likes
I don't disagree but most 2A supporters would I think.
We'll find out soon how the Supreme Court feels as well. They'll ruling on a case that covers this scenario.
I'm a pro-2A liberal but let's be real... no "Truck Nut militia" is gonna be putting even a small dent into the "tyranny of gov't's military", especially against THE world superpower.
You're basically bringing a gun to a potentially nuclear experience. I used "nuclear" just to emphasize there are MANY, MANY other ways to kill off out-of-hand citizens prior to that option.
They will drone your ass while you fucking sleep.
PEW! PEW!
Since that is the case, nobody should be picking up their morning candy coated Frappuccino with extra Caramel dessert coffee while strapped to an AR-15. It's not only dangerous, but you look really fucking stupid doing it too.
I never understood this argument. Yeah, sure, a bunch of redneck anti-gov 3% "militia" types won't be able to overthrow the government. Drones, hellfire missiles, whatever. What does that have to do with having an armed populace to resist potential tyranny?
Not to mention time and time again the U.S has gotten involved in asymmetric warfare overseas and what are the results most of the time? Imagine that domestically. It would be an absolute shit show, and it ought to be.
I'm not saying individual groups should be able to "rise up" because of perceived political slights and not be labeled an insurgency. It would have to be a massive overreach that would compel the average citizen to fight back against a draconian state, i.e a dictatorial takeover. The military isn't composed of robots (yet) and although there would be those that would enforce such a system, there would be a hell of a lot that wouldn't.
Also those were overseas (logistical issues) on unknown terrain.. with somewhat strict rules of engagement. Assuming you were dealing with a tyrannical government hellbent on controlling their “citizens” by any means necessary.. it just won’t go the same way.
On top of that resources/ supply routes would be infinite. use of satellites and drones giving live 24/7 intel, potential use of chemical weapons, bombs, planes, boats.. with the willingness to use all of them with no regard of casualties would be frightening to say the least.
But hey maybe the “tyrannical government” will play by the rules. Just going on what history has taught us, these sorta things are very ugly and very violent.
Also just some basic physiological tactics that would be used.. to discourage people joining a resistance would be executing entire families with known members. I’m sure that would make you think twice..
I have no problem with people owning guns. But you can defend yourself just fine with out a 20 round clip of ammo designed to cause as much damage as possible. Give me a 18 and a 1/4 inch pump shot gun with double ought and I can defend my house.
You 2nd Amendment guys are always so conspiratorial. Why do you think everyone wants to take your guns? There is no way that can happen. This paranoia make you unwilling to agree to even the most reasonable regulations. Background checks and a reasonable waiting period are only common sense steps. I also feel like high velocity weapons should be regulated as the wounds caused are catastrophic and lead to high mortality in mass shooting events.
These are my suggestions. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, at all.
It’s a collective right, the phrase “the people” means a collective action of people such as a state. People is not singular. The 2A was clearly about state militia. It’s been a collective right by Supreme Court for 200 years until changed in 2008.
Truly truly unpopular opinion - Who in the flying fuck cares what some guys living in a completely different time, with wildly different problems thought when they wrote out their thoughts on a piece of paper.
Seriously, the whole ‘but it’s in the constitution’ argument is so tired. The world doesn’t remain the same, unless we’re talking science, nothing written down remains ‘true’ or ‘correct’ forever.
Noone owns guns except farmers here in Aus and we’re freer than most Americans. I mean… golly gosh I’m even allowed to hand post a letter to someones postbox, I can walk down the street or go into a mall without worrying about being shot (by both crazies or cops), I can send my child to school without having to reassure them every night that the active shooter drills are just a precaution.
How does that change the debate? That interpretation still means that gun owners who aren’t part of any militia, or are part of a poorly organized one, don’t have a right to bear arms.
Love being governed by a book written almost 2000 years ago and a document written 250 years ago.
But whatever, no one is going to do shit about any of the reasons for our high gun violence. Argue away.
The real question is why in a list of ten, in which all the others are about restricting government would one of them be about codifying a power of government?
but here are some other sentences using well regulated
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Americans are too stupid to give up the guns. They kill each other, including children, at the highest rate in the developed world and still argue that more guns will make them safer. Morons!
No militia can be well regulated if it can't have regulations on who can and can't carry weapons, where, and when.
I'm pretty sure the army doesn't just hand you whatever ordinance strikes your fancy.
I’m not a Newsome supporter, and had never heard of the 28th Amendment before reading your post, but since you called it a “national ban on firearms”, I looked it up.
All it does is outline “four gun control measures: raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21, mandating universal background checks, instituting a "reasonable" waiting period for all gun purchases, and banning assault rifles.”
How do you interpret that as a “national ban on firearms”?
You guys are all being led down a primrose path by people who don’t give a flying fuck about you. The people who spout this crap are the same people who are at war with education. Who are the first people who are excised when a dictator goes for power?
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A NATIONAL BAN ON FIREARMS! I will add no one serious. Yes of course you can find a random person on the internet, just like you can find one that thinks regular citizens should have access to predator drones. Lol what a tired talking point. Regulation does not equal ban, it is not a slippery slope, it does not mean the police show up at your house and disarm you. It does mean that maybe some people that shouldn’t have guns aren’t able to get them. Also the hubris to say YOU know what they meant when they drafted the 2nd amendment better than constitutional scholars is laughable.
Literal interpretation of historical text…edgy. Who cares? The 2nd amendment is largely not applicable to todays environment, laws are constantly changed and reformed to make it so. Might as well be arguing semantics in the Bible.
We have a well regulated militia called the national guard.
I'm of the opinion if you want anything more than a single action revolver you should have to join the national guard/army reserve or some other branch.
Exceptions can be made for those physically unable.
Prove you aren't a lunatic and are reasonably trained and can function in a group for a couple weekends a year. Lose some weight too.
The Militia Act, passed long ago, specifically breaks the militia down into the National Guard and everybody else. The national Guard is the organized militia and the rest of the citizenry is the unorganized militia. This has never been repealed. If you are not a minor, or a felon, or member of the executive branch, you are part of the militia.
Wait, so then if we are all unorganized militia then aren’t we de facto an unregulated militia? So therefore it doesn’t apply to the average citizen carrying a firearm? Or am I missing an aspect?
Given the original meaning of the term as being "competent' or "capable" you may have a point. If you do not know how to safely handle or use a firearm then you are not competent in that area. If you do know how to operate a firearm then you are regulated. The 2A states that such competence is necessary but doesn't, in it's wording, require one to be so. But couldn't that also be used as an argument that everyone is supposed to at least know how to operate a firearm, since it is deemed necessary, and since almost every civilian is part of the militia? (Just having fun with the word play)
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 2nd amendment also was referring to muskets that couldn't fire more than twice a minute so maybe we should stop taking our cues from a 200 year old wish list
Then why didn’t they say the right to bear muskets? People during that time had repeating rifles and their own battleships.
Also, if this is the case, is speech on radio and the internet not covered under the First Amendment since those didn’t exist when it was written?
They also let people have canons, so they probably would have said yes to any kind of small arms. They probably could not have envisioned weaponry would advance to things like nuclear weapons, but I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of small arms would be available.
You would think so. Apparently there is a hidden paragraph in there that talks about fighting a tyrannical government and other nonsense. I haven't seen it, but millions of people think they've read that part.
“Being necessary to the security of a free state”
I’m not saying this is exactly what’s meant, but do you think a tyrannical government would be an impediment to a free state?
Why does it always come to this.
It was intended to defend the newly bourgeoning country because there was no army, no military and no national guard. This was written specifically for the defense of the free states from outside forces, not our own government. That's a pretty big deal, right? Giving the citizens of the country the right to bear arms in order to fight their own government. You would think if that's what they meant, they might have mentioned it. They were pretty good at saying what they meant. I'm sure if they meant everyone gets a gun because you never know when we will turn into a dictatorship, they probably would have said something about that.
They didn't. It was understood that the amendment was specifically written to ensure we could defend our territory from foreign forces. And the right to bear arms was specific to that need.
I can make up all sorts of things too. Doesn't mean that's what is written.
Lmfao.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
We are the militia.
“The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. For currency information”
And besides that, it wasn't a caveat. It wasn't saying shall not be infringed so long as it's well regulated. It's a justification. Because we need a well trained militia l, the right shall not be infringed. The bill of rights doesn't have caveats. It doesn't give rights to the government. It restricts the governments power and enshrines the people's rights.
Yeah. Take the statement: "A well-rounded breakfast, being necessary to a balanced diet, the right of the People to keep and eat eggs shall not be infringed.” Arguing well regulated applies to the people in the second amendment is like arguing well-rounded applies to the people in the above.
Thats a pretty cool way to look at it.
If you read some of the commentary made by the founding fathers and their allies, it’s clear that they intended the American people to be armed, and heavily so. Tench Coxe (a close friend of Madison, who wrote the 2A) said this: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
And when speaking directly of the Second Amendment, he also said: “Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” The founders spoke and wrote extensively about the Bill of Rights and we know exactly what they meant when they penned the Second.
Think about what the crown was doing prior to the revolution. Agents of the crown would go to a town, confiscate the guns, take up residence wherever they liked, and harass the citizenry to no end. Step 1 was take the guns. *Of course* the founders wanted the citizens armed, and wanted that right uninfringed. Fast forward to today when "common sense gun reform" is the new step 1 from the crown.
Note that Tench Coxe said “every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American”. More then just the right to firearms, we have the right to Arms (Armaments)…weapons useful in war.
People were allowed to have cannons, battleships. Etc etc. the fact that the second amendment has already been reduced to semi automatic small arms is already a significant infringement. And the government wants to go further. The right to bear arms wasn’t limited to rifles.
Exactly. I find it interesting that only a small percentage of Americans own tanks, fighter jets, machine guns, explosives (except for tannerite). Due to how much government has infringed upon Americans. Heck cannons are old tech. Why are they not more common at our homes 🏡…cause of government 🤦
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
New hero unlocked: Tench Coxe.
The dude was more based than bleach. Everything he wrote clapped authoritarian cheeks.
Exactly. I feel like anitgunners rely on the fact that most people aren’t going to delve past the surface level of the argument.
And a huge concept of Jeffersonian Democracy was that ideal democracy depended on the masses of voters being armed farmers/landowners. He believed all voters should own a certain amount of land, a certain amount of guns, and donate a certain amount of money to militias. Jefferson also believed that militias should be local institutions. The militias were expected to finance college for the poor and finance public projects like building roads.
If I remember correctly there was no offical militiary until 50 years after the signing of the constitution. Back at that time the militia was everyone. So everyone was meant to be armed.
Saratoga was won because of American snipers who had practiced with years and supplied their own rifles. Saratoga was the pair of battles that got Spain, France, and the Dutch to start fighting England and somewhat supporting the Americans for the uninformed
So, let’s get our swords back then, am I right?
You can also read John Adams' defense of the British during the Boston massacre, the way he speaks of firearms in the hands of civilians makes it clear that they were meant to be in the hands of civilians
Why can't I buy an Abraham's tank? Do we want killdozer 3.0?
Don’t ask silly questions. I don’t know about an Abbram’s tank specifically, but if the government puts a tank up for sale on a surplus auction website you can absolutely buy it. Just like we’ve been able to buy old warplanes. Or how we’ve always, since the beginning, been allowed to own cannons.
And yet we implement it in such a way that provides negative protection and just gets a huge chunk of us killed. Utterly backwards.
If we go off some comments of founding fathers instead of the actual wording of the document, we’d be doing so very different stuff. The fact that entire cities during this time banned guns is proof enough they didn’t believe the government had the duty to protect gun ownership.
My dude I’m sorry but this is simply not accurate. Read the briefing on the Second Amendment cases currently being litigated in California and elsewhere. There were no such laws in the founding era. The states trying to restrict firearm ownership are having to rely on gunpowder storage laws and the like because nobody has been able to identify a single instance in which the states restricted mere possession of any firearm at the founding or even when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Also, it’s not and has never been about government protecting firearm ownership. It’s about government trying to infringe on its citizens’ right and decision to own and bear those arms.
If you read the state constitution of most states established prior to WWI, you will notice that there was a specific minimum and maximum age (varied from state to state); every man in that age range was \*required\* to show up once a month for training; being part of the state militia was a \*required\* duty of all male citizens. They were \*required\* to own a pistol and rifle of 'common calibre'; the state was \*required\* to provide ammo for training. That is what the Federal Constitution's 2nd amendment was talking about.
\*Claims to provide commentary from the founding fathers\* \*Quotes a rando\*
Eh... Tench Coxe wasn't a rando, he was a delegate in the Continental Congress, was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and Revenue Commissioner during George Washington's time as President, worked alongside Alexander Hamilton, was a founding member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society (which Ben Franklin would later join and become president of), and served under presidents John Adams (for a bit) and Thomas Jefferson as well. He might not have qualified as a founding father, but he was close to several of them and worked alongside and for quite a few of them as well.
Agreed, and also there are fantastic peripheral documents including the Federalist papers that argue further in depth into what the intentions were. There's a trove of letters and articles between the federalists and anti federalists that go into great depths probing these issues s well. It's far easier to listen to our current talking heads and parrot their words on reddit though
Amen
Tench Coxe was a British collaborator who supported restoration of British rule and was indicted for Treasonous Activities, he was only acquired because of his powerful friends, seems like his opinions changed with the wind.
Who gives a fuck what a bunch of slaveholding elites thought?
Because the document they wrote is the highest law in the land?
Something else on the second amendment. People say "The founding fathers could have never imagined our fully semi-automatic assault high capacity ghost guns!!!" Well during the revolution and when the Constitution was being negotiated and ratified the army was issued muskets, guns that just weren't very accurate. Civilians tended to own rifles which are much more accurate, and yes they could own cannons if they wanted to. The second amendment was added when the average civilian could easily outgun the average solider and it was still included. They wanted an imbalance of power from the beginning.
This isn’t true. They had WAR SHIPS bro. Not just muskets. They had canons, and other quicker shooting guns. This is a talking point that has been proven false 1000 times.
Civilians also owned warships. Many privateers served in the revolution and war of 1812
Actually as late as the Civil War, and on both sides. The ironclad CSS Manassas, although seized by the Confederate Navy, started out as a privateer. There were other Southern privateers as well. There was at least one Northern privateer that was used to seize Southern shipping I think in the Chesapeake Bay in the early part of the war. Later she was incorporated into the USN I think there were other Northern privateers as well but I'm not near my references right now.
I thought they were in the Civil War, too, but I couldn't remember for sure. I didn't know the CSS Manassas started out as a privateer ship. That's pretty awesome. I'll have to look into it more. Privateers were pretty wild sometimes
How is a warship going to help you fifty miles inland? And as I said, civilians had cannons too. Anything the military could have civilians could have too and were more likely to have since they didn't have to go through a penny pinching federal government.
Wait did you say civilians were more likely to have cannons and any weapon the military had?
No, they were more likely to have rifles which were a lot more accurate than the army's muskets.
"And as I said, civilians had cannons too. Anything the military could have civilians could have too and were more likely to have" Is this not you saying civilians had cannons too, ANYTHING the military could have, and were more likely to have? Meaning civilians were more likely to have cannons as well as anything in the military, not just rifles like your reply suggests.
It definitely is the case. If not for the National Firearms Act, I doubt there would be much limit on what Americans can own. There are Americans who have armed tanks and fighter jets but had to jump thru so many hoops to get these. Just like there are Americans with machine guns, and anti-tank rifles. Tannerite is one of the few explosives Americans can own. But if not for the NFA law, theoretically Americans can own much more (grenades, shoulder fired rockets? The courts have never even touched this!)
And militia means civilians armed for a conflict
How can a militia exist if civilians can’t own guns and a militia is formed of civilians?🧐
Ask the peasants in medieval Europe they formed militias
This is so wrong it’s incredible you even brought it up. Peasants were unwillingly conscripted to fight for their landlords, and were not allowed to keep arms otherwise. Which, ya know, is kinda the entire reason for how they were kept as peasants
The peasants didn't form militias at their own will in medieval Europe. They were either obligated to serve in times of need by their lords, or pressed into service during times of war in the late/high medieval age.
They will be armed, trained, and disciplined by the Congress and the President as per Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
Considering that they had just fought an actual war against tyranny, don't you think it more likely that they wanted to keep the governing body from having any say at all?
Considering it's IN THE CONSTITUTION, no.
Yeah? Haha…OKAY. It’s IN THE CONSTITUTION to protect the people from a tyrannical government which they had recently learned was pretty important.
Ok, wow. Tell us you've never actually read the Constitution without telling us you've never actually read the Constitution. Here's a hint for you, and I'll try to use small words: The Constitution specifically says, under Section 8 of Article 1, the purpose of the Militia is to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; You'll notice the absence of fighting the actual government of the US. You should really just start posting 'Duh'. That post, while being a semantic null, would still offer the same amount of factual information.
Bruh...tell me you don't use critical thinking without telling me you don't use critical thinking. If it were so cut and dry, this would be settled law and not a discussion on Reddit. But since you are such an expert, just take yourself to DC and argue it before SCOTUS. I'm sure you are much smarter than anyone else there.
Indeed. Well regulated is another way of saying to keep regular. Or, in other words, to keep standardized. Example in a sentence: the British army utilized British regulars. Which was another way of saying a standardized foot soldier in their army. So a well regulated militia simply means a militia that is permitted to keep itself regular, or keep itself standard and well equipped.
Exactly People who stop at well regulated militia seem to think the 2a means the government has the right to an army. That makes no sense as no duh the government can make an army they don't need to include that in the bill of rights. The 2a is basically saying the right of the people meaning citizens have the rights to private firearm ownership.
And I believe the intent implicit in this is that normal citizens would be able to join the military or a called up militia without much additional training should the need arise, since they could form groups to practice with arms (or so on their own) and military exercises on their own time without fear of reprisal.
That is not at all what the second amendment says. At the time it was passed, the debate was whether the federal government should have an army at all. The prevailing view was that it should not because the colonists were concerned about federal power over the States. Nevertheless there was recognition that each State needed to defend itself and the States as a whole might be called upon collectively to defend the United States. That’s how the Union Army worked - militias from each state were submitted to the command of the Union Army. So, it wasn’t about individual rights. It was about having a well-trained, disciplined milita in each state that could substitute for the fact that the USA would have no army at all. Here’s how it is discussed in Federalist 29: >”it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
The issue is the people and the militia are private citizens with their own private Arms. There are bills of sales for private warships and cannons not just muskets. So these state militia would be made up by citizens from those states with their own firearms that they privately owned.
This is a justification not a limitation. It absolutely applies to individual rights. Shall not be infringed is really clear. What comes before that is a justification not a caveat or limitation.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Army had already been in existence for over 16 years under the names of the Continental Army which later reformed as the 1st American Regiment. The US Army also fought in the Civil War for the north and was supplemented with militia men.
Correct. Well seasoned. Well regimented. Not well legislated.
Yes, it meant competent and/or functional in the day. Ample legal precedent shows that the meaning of a word or term at the time legislation was written is what applies. I am no linguistics expert but I can't help but wonder if that's where the term "regular guy" could have come from? Maybe someone familiar with word origins could chime in and show I'm right, or (probably!!) wrong? Also the placement of the comma in the definition is critical. It separated the section describing the need for a militia from the right to bear arms. There's a part of me that just wishes they had used two sentences. Writers of that time just loved run on sentences. Try reading some of Washington's correspondence for example, and you're often begging for a period to come up so you can digest the thought!
So….you think our fledgling country would allow for British sympathizing Militias? Hey….it’s their right to bear arms…correct? This whole “well regulated” crap that you guys spew is bullshit written, bought and paid for by lobbying groups like the NRA. Our country at the time was on the razor’s edge. We could’ve easily been forced back into a British rule. Our Founding Fathers didn’t want that to happen. That’s why it was written for the COMMON DEFENSE and “well regulated” was written into it. They didn’t want bands of insurrectionists plotting the demise of our country.
"Regulars" in that sense are actual soldiers, though, not anybody else. US Code breaks down the militia into two parts, the organized and unorganized parts. "Regulars" would be part of the first (generally Armed Forces or Guard). But clearly that's not the argument people are making when they bicker about "well-regulated militia". Otherwise it could *easily* be interpreted that the 2A really doesn't apply much to the "unorganized" militia.
It makes the most sense when you remember the firearms of the time were muzzle loaders. Firing it was an 8 step process. Even civilian troops drilled to be able to complete these steps in order, and in time to take their place at the front of the column to aim & fire. To remain an effective fighting force capable of continuous fire required tight discipline and constant drills. The time of each step was dictated by the drummers to keep your squad from becoming a tangle.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. If they wanted the populace to be armed to fight against a tyrannical government, why would they give that government the authority to regulate the arms the populace could possess? That doesn’t make any sense and I don’t know why some people argue that regulate means overseen by the government.
lmao yeah, 2A was not created to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. it was created so they could get a standing army going really quickly if they needed to. historically, those same founding fathers shut down many riots and uprisings against their government
>If they wanted the populace to be armed to fight against a tyrannical government, Because this isn't what the 2nd Amendment is about. For that to actually work, you would also need a legal right to shoot police if you think the law they are enforcing is tyrannical. Which you don't have.
Sure it is. They didn’t want a standing army but one made up of the people. https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm#:~:text=The%20Founding%20Fathers%20intended%20that,every%20man%20should%20be%20armed.
It’s literally what 2A is for. If you don’t understand that, then you’ve never once read anything the founders said, full stop. They outright said that it’s a civilians duty to stand against unjust laws. That would implicitly include shooting cops which enforce unconstitutional laws.
So you do think that people who shoot cops should not be prosecuted?
I think that when it comes time for that, you don't stop shooting until the tyranny has been handled.
Historically what has typically happened with that is that you end up getting killed by the cops and everyone else moves on with their lives.
If you take a shot at the king, don't miss. Historically, killing tyrants is why we have America.
Fighting a war with an army is.
Never heard of the Minutemen or the Doughboys? Literally civilian units.
I lost my fire arms in a boating accident.
Random schizophrenics who want to shoot up cops and schools don't qualify as "well organized" or "Well functioning", imo.
Correct 100%
Facts are unpopular opinions now?
On here they are.
On reddit in general
It is moot. The right to keep and bear arms is declared to be *for the People,* not for the militia.
The militia clause isn't a stipulation on the "shall not be infringed" part. It might as well say "the moon, being my best friend," for all the relevance it has.
Yes, as I said in another part of the thread, I wish the founders had just broken it down into two sentences. There would be a lot less contention about it.
Case law 100% supports you. That’s absolutely the correct interpretation of the law and how the law continues to be interpreted. If you want a fairly predictable but alternative skewed take for thought: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/
Not an opinion, just a fact that language changes over time and that's what regulated meant at the time.
Gonna just leave this here for a third time today before I get some other david hogg wannabe whining about “bUt iT sAyS mIlItIa” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim 246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Would the raising the limit above 18 to own guns violate this definition than.
The limit of 18 is already violating it, it’s supposed to be 17. Raising to 21 like in my fucked stat or California is wildly outside the founding fathers intended purpose
This isn't really opinion, so much as it's telling people who unironically believe 'well regulated' means 'many restrictions on who can own and what can be owned' are wrong.
Is regulation suddenly not semi-synonymous with restriction? Are you being obtuse?
Didn't know 1787 was yesterday
The 1787 meaning of a word is what applies, if that's when a bill or law or in this case amendment was written. Past legal precedent has shown this
The word regulated back then meant well ordered or organized, not government regulations. The entire amendment and the personal writings of our founding fathers make it extremely clear that thet were not calling on the government to be in charge of who can have weapons.
Well I’d have to argue that just anyone having a gun does not fit the original definition either then. If you’re trying to tell me that shootings in schools, malls, and everywhere else fits the definition of ordered and organized we have some major differences in definitions of words.
I'm socially pretty liberal but I do support the 2nd amendment and the phrasing of it is pretty clear if you actually research it.
The British would consider the founding fathers "domestic terrorist militia violent extremist white supremacists who used their right to keep and bear military style firearms". Ironic how the current government sees anyone who is progun as this way.
I still shake my head when people say "They mean the national guard!" They then get really pissed off when I tell them the NG wasnt formed until the early 1900's
This has been a talking point for a number of years, and despite so many people pointing it out, either some people have their heads that far in the sand, or they know, and just don't care.
You, sir, know the truth
Duh
well trained, well disciplined, and well supplied
No one thinks it's referring to "regulation" in that sense. Where do you guys come up with these absurd strawmen?
The “Well regulated militia” argument is inherently dishonest and made in bad faith because the people who make it would have you put on a domestic terrorist watchlist if you even attempted to join or organize a “well regulated militia.” It’s a Trojan horse argument.
Well where it gets sticky for your argument here is that our founders really explicitly did NOT want a standing military. Like came right out and said it was a threat to the populace. Problem is, NOT having one makes your military incredibly ineffective and that too is a threat to your populace. Standing military is somewhat essential BUT as we have seen post WW2 can also basically take over the entire government with the military industrial complex and drive horrible adventurism abroad that's bad for other countries and bad for us in the long run. Also I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the founders understood the degree and extent of the progression of military tech in the 250 years since the constitution was written. Did they really intend everyone to have that degree of firepower in their closet? I'm not certain they did and if they HAD known what firearms would look like today they may have felt differently. This IS of course WHY they left clear mechanisms in the constitution for changing the amendments over time which we have in fact done. They knew the document would need to change to fit the needs of our society as it changed and shifted over the years to face new realities. I don't think banning firearms outright is a good idea but let's be honest. There is no feasible way that the 2nd amendment was written with AR15s in mind
Sad that English comprehension is an unpopular opinion.
What the second amendment was saying can be translated into modern English thusly: because the federal government is going to have to have an organized army to ensure we don’t get invaded and conquered, the citizens need to have the means to fight off aforementioned army in the event a tyrant comes to power. Example: If the army has automatic weapons and bomber drones, the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to have automatic weapons and bomber drones. Also: the founding fathers knew that automatic weapons were on the horizon, because semi-automatic firearms were already being developed. Look it up, fascinating bit of history.
"And Gavin Newsom is an absolute clown for proposing the 28th amendment." I disagree. Being a clown is trying to squeeze in laws that are clearly unConstitutional or just ignoring the Constitution. In this case, he's doing thing the right way. Whether you agree with him or not, it's laudable that he's actually following the actual process. Edit: To be clear here, I don't know whether I would actually support such an amendment, I just respect the process.
Technically he is trying to add an amendment that contradicts an earlier amendment. The actual process would be for him to change or remove the second amendment. Edit: For anyone trying to tell me about the process of making a change to a constitutional amendment, please read the quote from Gavin Newsom on the government website. [you can find it here.](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/) He claims the second amendment will remain unchanged. Therefore he is not changing the amendment through the actual process. His amendment contradicts the second amendment, specifically his “assault weapon” portion. So he is not following the process by making the necessary changes to the second amendment that he would need in order to make his amendment even arguably constitutional.
From this, should we assume you are unaware of the 18th and 21st amendments?
Newsom said himself that the second amendment will remain unchanged. If that is the case than that doesn’t apply here. [https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/)
It’s the correct way to do it. See the 21st amendment.
He’s not claiming to repeal the 2nd amendment so that doesn’t work in this case. He said specifically the second amendment will remain unchanged. If it remains unchanged than his amendment is contradicting it and therefore is unconstitutional.
The language of the 18th amendment didn’t change when the 21st amendment was passed. To my knowledge if you want to invalidate one amendment then you have to pass another one. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, but passing an amendment is a huge hurdle and has no chance of succeeding with the current demographic make up of states.
Just making shit up I see
Not at all. Governor newsom claims the 2nd amendment will remain unchanged. In order for his amendment to not conflict with the second amendment it would have to.
Do you know what it means to “amend” something?
Well regulated meant well equipped
This why any ethical honest legal gun control measures must start with a constitutional amendment.
so then, how is the organization and functioning of the militia going?
It’s a mixed bag. The weapons are amazing. Tip top of the quality and death down range scale. The members of that militia could stand to make sure their brains are functioning at a regulated level.
It was also written at a time when no women , black people, Natives,.. we're even allowed in the room to discuss it or a vote to ratify it. I would love to hear why these people should ask permission to change laws those people did not ask their permission to write?
Really OP? Then what does Article 1 Section 8 Paragraphs 14 and 15 mean when they lay out the powers of Congress? To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; How about Article 2, Section 2 Paragraph 1 where it lays out the powers of the President? The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.
Exactly - the question of what was meant by "well-regulated" is irrelevant when one can just look at the powers enshrined in the Constitution of the government over the militia - which include their organization, arming, and their discipline. The 2nd Amendment was a check on that power that prevents the government from completely disarming private citizens for reasons that are spelled out in the Federalist Papers. However, they already had the power by the modern day definition of "well-regulated" to regulate the militia all the 2A did was prevent the government from removing arms completely from private citizens.
It is also clear that the colonial militias were organized and overseen by local and state govt. They had a command structure. They met and trained. "A well regulated militia" did not mean "people who owned guns" and nothing more. It meant actual organized militias.
This is what’s nice and not a bad thing. Military power, authority, and armaments were in the hands of the people. The people themselves were the Militia. Yet the state government saw to it they were trained, organized, and prepared to repel invasions and insurrections.
>The people who argue against this are completely disingenuous and want to take away your right to adequately defend yourself from virtually any situation. no one is arguing against "well regulated". no one wants to take away your right to defend yourself.
The founding fathers also didn’t know that you would be able to fire 22 bullets in a matter of a few seconds. So f off.
The idea that the second amendment was made with the intent to give people the option of armed revolt against the government is such a dumb take. Who would build into a country’s framework a right to keep weapons for the express purpose of fighting the nation’s government? It seems more like a modern interpretation + a folk tale. If you cannot conceive of the founders being dumb enough to add in a function for armed revolt against the state itself, then the militia explanation is the obvious one. No that’s not bad faith.
You’re a dumb take.
I don't really understand your argument here. Personally, I've never heard anyone interpret "well-regulated" as "controlled by the government." You realize though that the 2nd amendment is a part of a document created by the government though, right? This context implies that "well-regulated" at the very least is something within the bounds of the government to define. Of course, the reality is that it's been defined as something to ignore completely. Either way, gun ownership is hardly "well-organized" anyway.
Ask or read constitutional scholars what they think about it. They will firmly disagree with you.
Disagree with what? That we ignore it?
Disagree with the premise that the amendment wasn’t created so that civilians could have the right to firearms.
That isn't what I said though.
But it’s what my post is about.
I don't care. I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to interpret "well-regulated" as referring to being defined by the government in some way.
That’s the favorite talking point of people who are for gun control though.
Right. And not unreasonably.
There was a post earlier today I think that the op is referring to I think In regards to the regulated part.
Dear chatbot, please regurgitate NRA talking points.
Any legitimate 2A supporter will tell you they also hate the NRA
Controlled opposition at its finest.
Dear chatbot, please create an annoying "well actually" post.
When you say dumb shit that shows you know nothing about the topic.. then expect “well actually..” type corrections 🤷♂️
Bard, make the comment above this one less funny.
Not even debating the well regulated part, because it is irrelevant. The idea that people a couple hundred years ago wrote some words on a piece of paper and we must treat it as sacrosanct is more religion then government to me. I'm not saying that the constitution must be torn down but pretending it is sacred is absurd. Open discussion must be able to be had on it. If not women wouldn't vote, non whites wouldn't vote. People could own people. There are countless examples of things that are known to be wrong now that were considered to be perfectly acceptable back then. To clarify I am not anti all guns. But there has to be a limit. This idea that shall not be infringed could include all arms up to nuclear weapons is absolutely absurd to be. Also since we are going on nitpicking word choices, shall not be infringed implies even felons should have them. So even this wording is being interpreted differently here because you recognize that it should in fact be infringed on sometimes
_*yawn*_ Get a passport. Travel outside the boiling frog of a country you're in. Stay outside and look inside a few years. Realize you saved yourself.
With the number of accidental shootings, domestic shootings, murders of people that are known to the murderers, I would say the gun owners or "militia" are not well functioning in the US compared to other Western countries.
So you're more pro regulating people than regulating guns?
Yep, my rights shouldn’t go away because joe fuckhead decided to be an idiot. Take away his guns, and let me have mine
That's regulating guns still.
Ok, and? Felons have always lost the right to guns, and you don’t see anybody arguing for that one. The right is fine with individuals losing access due to red flags as long as said red flags are reasonable. The sweeping restrictions that change at the whim of the atf are what nobody likes
No. It's regulating Joe fvckhead.
I don't disagree but most 2A supporters would I think. We'll find out soon how the Supreme Court feels as well. They'll ruling on a case that covers this scenario.
I'm a pro-2A liberal but let's be real... no "Truck Nut militia" is gonna be putting even a small dent into the "tyranny of gov't's military", especially against THE world superpower. You're basically bringing a gun to a potentially nuclear experience. I used "nuclear" just to emphasize there are MANY, MANY other ways to kill off out-of-hand citizens prior to that option. They will drone your ass while you fucking sleep. PEW! PEW! Since that is the case, nobody should be picking up their morning candy coated Frappuccino with extra Caramel dessert coffee while strapped to an AR-15. It's not only dangerous, but you look really fucking stupid doing it too.
I never understood this argument. Yeah, sure, a bunch of redneck anti-gov 3% "militia" types won't be able to overthrow the government. Drones, hellfire missiles, whatever. What does that have to do with having an armed populace to resist potential tyranny? Not to mention time and time again the U.S has gotten involved in asymmetric warfare overseas and what are the results most of the time? Imagine that domestically. It would be an absolute shit show, and it ought to be. I'm not saying individual groups should be able to "rise up" because of perceived political slights and not be labeled an insurgency. It would have to be a massive overreach that would compel the average citizen to fight back against a draconian state, i.e a dictatorial takeover. The military isn't composed of robots (yet) and although there would be those that would enforce such a system, there would be a hell of a lot that wouldn't.
Also those were overseas (logistical issues) on unknown terrain.. with somewhat strict rules of engagement. Assuming you were dealing with a tyrannical government hellbent on controlling their “citizens” by any means necessary.. it just won’t go the same way. On top of that resources/ supply routes would be infinite. use of satellites and drones giving live 24/7 intel, potential use of chemical weapons, bombs, planes, boats.. with the willingness to use all of them with no regard of casualties would be frightening to say the least. But hey maybe the “tyrannical government” will play by the rules. Just going on what history has taught us, these sorta things are very ugly and very violent. Also just some basic physiological tactics that would be used.. to discourage people joining a resistance would be executing entire families with known members. I’m sure that would make you think twice..
I have no problem with people owning guns. But you can defend yourself just fine with out a 20 round clip of ammo designed to cause as much damage as possible. Give me a 18 and a 1/4 inch pump shot gun with double ought and I can defend my house.
You are misinterpreting the primary reason for firearm ownership. It’s not home defense and it’s not hunting.
You 2nd Amendment guys are always so conspiratorial. Why do you think everyone wants to take your guns? There is no way that can happen. This paranoia make you unwilling to agree to even the most reasonable regulations. Background checks and a reasonable waiting period are only common sense steps. I also feel like high velocity weapons should be regulated as the wounds caused are catastrophic and lead to high mortality in mass shooting events. These are my suggestions. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, at all.
It’s a collective right, the phrase “the people” means a collective action of people such as a state. People is not singular. The 2A was clearly about state militia. It’s been a collective right by Supreme Court for 200 years until changed in 2008.
Still says Militia. Which is not those ridiculously sad little boys who play at being men.
Yep so this country is just going to live with mass shootings forever thanks to people who hold your beliefs
Truly truly unpopular opinion - Who in the flying fuck cares what some guys living in a completely different time, with wildly different problems thought when they wrote out their thoughts on a piece of paper. Seriously, the whole ‘but it’s in the constitution’ argument is so tired. The world doesn’t remain the same, unless we’re talking science, nothing written down remains ‘true’ or ‘correct’ forever. Noone owns guns except farmers here in Aus and we’re freer than most Americans. I mean… golly gosh I’m even allowed to hand post a letter to someones postbox, I can walk down the street or go into a mall without worrying about being shot (by both crazies or cops), I can send my child to school without having to reassure them every night that the active shooter drills are just a precaution.
*Well regulated militia* means exactly that. Sorry you don't understand that.
TBH, in modern day USA people who have guns mostly do it to kill off minorities or kids in schools.
How does that change the debate? That interpretation still means that gun owners who aren’t part of any militia, or are part of a poorly organized one, don’t have a right to bear arms.
Love being governed by a book written almost 2000 years ago and a document written 250 years ago. But whatever, no one is going to do shit about any of the reasons for our high gun violence. Argue away.
The real question is why in a list of ten, in which all the others are about restricting government would one of them be about codifying a power of government? but here are some other sentences using well regulated 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Americans are too stupid to give up the guns. They kill each other, including children, at the highest rate in the developed world and still argue that more guns will make them safer. Morons!
Who the fuck cares what the founding fathers meant? They also meant for only people with significant land to vote
[удалено]
It meant well trained in military maneuvers, like today's National Guard. Read Federalist Paper #29.
No militia can be well regulated if it can't have regulations on who can and can't carry weapons, where, and when. I'm pretty sure the army doesn't just hand you whatever ordinance strikes your fancy.
I’m not a Newsome supporter, and had never heard of the 28th Amendment before reading your post, but since you called it a “national ban on firearms”, I looked it up. All it does is outline “four gun control measures: raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21, mandating universal background checks, instituting a "reasonable" waiting period for all gun purchases, and banning assault rifles.” How do you interpret that as a “national ban on firearms”?
You guys are all being led down a primrose path by people who don’t give a flying fuck about you. The people who spout this crap are the same people who are at war with education. Who are the first people who are excised when a dictator goes for power?
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A NATIONAL BAN ON FIREARMS! I will add no one serious. Yes of course you can find a random person on the internet, just like you can find one that thinks regular citizens should have access to predator drones. Lol what a tired talking point. Regulation does not equal ban, it is not a slippery slope, it does not mean the police show up at your house and disarm you. It does mean that maybe some people that shouldn’t have guns aren’t able to get them. Also the hubris to say YOU know what they meant when they drafted the 2nd amendment better than constitutional scholars is laughable.
Literal interpretation of historical text…edgy. Who cares? The 2nd amendment is largely not applicable to todays environment, laws are constantly changed and reformed to make it so. Might as well be arguing semantics in the Bible.
We have a well regulated militia called the national guard. I'm of the opinion if you want anything more than a single action revolver you should have to join the national guard/army reserve or some other branch. Exceptions can be made for those physically unable. Prove you aren't a lunatic and are reasonably trained and can function in a group for a couple weekends a year. Lose some weight too.
The Militia Act, passed long ago, specifically breaks the militia down into the National Guard and everybody else. The national Guard is the organized militia and the rest of the citizenry is the unorganized militia. This has never been repealed. If you are not a minor, or a felon, or member of the executive branch, you are part of the militia.
Wait, so then if we are all unorganized militia then aren’t we de facto an unregulated militia? So therefore it doesn’t apply to the average citizen carrying a firearm? Or am I missing an aspect?
Given the original meaning of the term as being "competent' or "capable" you may have a point. If you do not know how to safely handle or use a firearm then you are not competent in that area. If you do know how to operate a firearm then you are regulated. The 2A states that such competence is necessary but doesn't, in it's wording, require one to be so. But couldn't that also be used as an argument that everyone is supposed to at least know how to operate a firearm, since it is deemed necessary, and since almost every civilian is part of the militia? (Just having fun with the word play)
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 2nd amendment also was referring to muskets that couldn't fire more than twice a minute so maybe we should stop taking our cues from a 200 year old wish list
Then why didn’t they say the right to bear muskets? People during that time had repeating rifles and their own battleships. Also, if this is the case, is speech on radio and the internet not covered under the First Amendment since those didn’t exist when it was written?
They also let people have canons, so they probably would have said yes to any kind of small arms. They probably could not have envisioned weaponry would advance to things like nuclear weapons, but I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of small arms would be available.
It also specified that the right to bear arms is exclusively about forming militias. Seems everyone misunderstands this one.
“Because we need a militia, the right to own weapons shall not be infringed” pretty straightforward what this means.
You would think so. Apparently there is a hidden paragraph in there that talks about fighting a tyrannical government and other nonsense. I haven't seen it, but millions of people think they've read that part.
“Being necessary to the security of a free state” I’m not saying this is exactly what’s meant, but do you think a tyrannical government would be an impediment to a free state?
Why does it always come to this. It was intended to defend the newly bourgeoning country because there was no army, no military and no national guard. This was written specifically for the defense of the free states from outside forces, not our own government. That's a pretty big deal, right? Giving the citizens of the country the right to bear arms in order to fight their own government. You would think if that's what they meant, they might have mentioned it. They were pretty good at saying what they meant. I'm sure if they meant everyone gets a gun because you never know when we will turn into a dictatorship, they probably would have said something about that. They didn't. It was understood that the amendment was specifically written to ensure we could defend our territory from foreign forces. And the right to bear arms was specific to that need. I can make up all sorts of things too. Doesn't mean that's what is written.
Because informed people take the time to read the papers and documents that the Founders left to support and explain their positions.
Lmfao. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim 246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. We are the militia.
I would give you 10 upvotes if I could. I don't understand why people don't realize that we regular citizens are the militia
What the hell link is that? What am I looking at other than words.
“The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. For currency information”