738
Would you support the Gun Act? (discuss.online)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

The second amendment is for everyone

It's actually not. It's for organized militias to arm themselves for military or defencive purposes for the safety of protecting the republic, not for that 40yo drug addict to own a Glock so he can kill his wife in a domestic argument.

It's remarkable how little Americans actually understand the 2A. And even that, they openly let fascism run rampant over their country. "I need my guns to protect my family!" while his family gets picked up by ICE.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Militias at the time of the revolution weren't organized. They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army. The 2nd was also intended to function as a check on state power. All of this is detailed in the federalist papers, written by the same authors as the constitution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago

    Just calling people into a group with a unified purpose and sense of responsibility reads as “organizing” to me.

    Getting a group of people to put up posters or fliers is organizing. It doesn’t need cards or logos or process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Militias at the time of the revolution weren't organized.

    Militias are organized, else it's just an angry crowd.

    AFAIK it's more about being abled to form already armed militia rather than procure weapons to arm the militia currently owning one pitchfork to share.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    They're organized when they're needed, by calling up and organizing a bunch of locals. These people weren't part of a national guard or anything, they weren't trained, they didn't have contracts. The founders intended for those locals to provide their own weapons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

    Cool. So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times. The 2nd Amendment is not for regular civilians to have access to firearms.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army.

    But when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed. Those farmers were not armed before conscription. So your "right to bear arms" is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

    Thanks for clearing that up for all the Americans reading this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times.

    I don't have to say that, the federalist papers said that.

    So your "right to bear arms" is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

    "We may someday hand you a gun" isn't a right to bear arms lmao

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    So your "right to bear arms" is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

    "We may someday hand you a gun" isn't a right to bear arms lmao

    If you understand your constitution, finish the amendment. I dare you to look it up and write out the rest of it after "the right to bear arms".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    A lot of people owned their own personal guns.

    And you keep saying farmers as if it was a specific group of the population. Like 90% of the population was farmers then.

    At this point I would venture to say your argument is just wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I don't keep saying "Farmers". The person I replied to said Farmers were given guns to defend the Republic in the event of defending it. Which is what the second amendment is based on.

    Once again, a dumbass American further proves they don't even understand their own constitution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    I did.not say they were given guns. I said they were given the right to bear arms in case they were called up to join a militia.

    You said they were given guns, and I said that doesn't count as a right to bear arms.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    As a 40yo drug addict with a glock I find your interpretation of the second amendment in disagreement with legal precedent and your reduction of domestic abuse to a crass and arguably classist stereotype somewhat problematic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •