This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.

▲

krapp 5 days ago | parent [-]

The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence.

Spend ten seconds around American gun culture. American gun owners absolutely believe the second amendment justifies violence, and Americans have believed as much for two centuries. Hell Thomas Jefferson thought any healthy democracy should have an uprising every 20 years or so.

That it happens to be illegal to shoot people under most circumstances is merely a formality. The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system, as a counterbalance to the potential violence of the state, because they inherently mistrusted the state. The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia."

Then again, the constitution was written when drawing and quartering was still practiced, along with slavery, and before the industrial revolution. Maybe the intent of the founding fathers as regards the second amendment no longer has a place in modern society. Unfortunately it can't be touched without triggering a full scale civil war so we're stuck with it and its consequences.

▲

zdragnar 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia."

There's not too much to debate there; many militias existed at the time. Every state had them! Further, every border was susceptible to foreign aggression, and the frontier borders were too vast to be policed or patrolled by soldiers to protect civilians from war or banditry. Civilians needed to be able to protect themselves, and the militias needed people who could shoot prior to enlisting, as the nation was constantly under threat.

> The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system

This is also not broadly true, barring some choice quotes intended to stir up support for the war. It was intended as a last resort against a tyrannical government. The assassinations of presidents have no legal foundation within the Constitution itself, despite it happening. Likewise, American gun culture doesn't promote assassinating politicians, but rather being prepared in case of the fall of the Constitution itself.

France would be a much better example of a country that embraces violence as a matter of course in politics.

	▲	maest 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> There's not too much to debate there; There is plenty to debate here. I don't know what the prevalent interpretation is here, but I do know it's a fact that the meaning is debated. I don't know why you're saying otherwise. For example, after 2 minutes of googling: https://www.isba.org/sections/bench/newsletter/2017/04/whatd...

▲

hollerith 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt

Aren't you confusing the text[1] with what one person, namely Thomas Jefferson, said about it?

[1] "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

	▲	krapp 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Aren't you confusing the text[1] with what one person, namely Thomas Jefferson, said about it? If I am, then so are the Supreme Court, the NRA, militia groups, the Republican Party and much of the country. At some point one has to admit that the purpose of a system is what it does and the American system does violence very well.

▲

cryptonector 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence.

Armed revolt is something people all over the political spectrum always want to leave the door open to (except once they have total power).