The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.

▲

svieira 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...

▲

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

The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.

Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.

Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.

The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.

▲

paulryanrogers 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.

Thankfully, whatever they meant then, we live today and can change the constitution and the laws to suit present circumstances. Nothing is sacred.

▲

artificialLimbs 4 days ago | parent [-]

>> Nothing is sacred.

This is the thought process of the morally depraved, upon which every tyrannical government establishes its power.

▲

paulryanrogers 4 days ago | parent [-]

Please help me understand what must be kept sacred.

▲

artificialLimbs 4 days ago | parent [-]

I can't but you can read the bible.

It's basically everything, except that which is evil.

▲

paulryanrogers 4 days ago | parent [-]

I've read the Bible at least four times. I'd rather not stone people for being born different. Nor inspire PTSD in children or adults with silly stories about punishment in eternal flames.

Good and evil are even more subjective than how people perceive colors. I hope we can at least agree that murder is wrong, and the tools which facilitate the most murder should be the most heavily regulated.

▲

artificialLimbs 4 days ago | parent [-]

Might have read it but clearly didn't understand the point of the sacrifice and the new covenant. You shouldn't be telling young children they're going to burn in hell for eternity any more than you should talk to them about sex.

Murder is wrong.

Every citizen worth a damn should own guns and the idea that they should not be regulated by the government is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Every gun law created since is an abberation that should be abolished.

	▲	paulryanrogers an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The first three words of 2A is "A well regulated...". IDK where this idea comes from that guns cannot be regulated. Shall we say prisoners have the right to bear arms? Felons with a violent past? People with mental illness? Surely there must be limits. Few rights are absolute in every circumstance.

▲

ryan_lane 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not personally against individuals owning guns, but the part that is somehow vehemently opposed is the "well-regulated" part. There's effectively no regulation, and somehow the 2nd amendment has been warped to leave out the part of regulation, to make folks believe they're entitled to guns without limit.

▲

vel0city 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Does it say "the right of the well-regulated militias to bear arms" or "the right for the states to bear arms"?

I'm for a lot more gun control than what we have today, but it's "the right of the people" in the text.

	▲	SV_BubbleTime 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Neither. [As a necessity for a free state, A well trained and in good working order group of able bodies citizens capable of fight for defense of self and state, is required], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Militia is just the people. Oxford 1800s has well-regulated to mean “in good working order”.