|
| ▲ | aeonik 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy. They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons. They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization. They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed. I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice. |
|
| ▲ | gruez an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views. |
| |
| ▲ | uoaei an hour ago | parent [-] | | You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation. |
|
|
| ▲ | Terr_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures. On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff. |
| |
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words? |
|
| |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy. If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies. |
|
|
| ▲ | potato3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > where are the well regulated militias? They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated". |
| |
| ▲ | plagiarist an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor. |
|
|
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The State Guards are the militias For example the Texas Guard: https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer |
| |
| ▲ | esseph 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Incorrect, that would be the: https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard ;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only. However TX considers it more complicated than that: The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia. |
|
