• ProfThadBach
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    “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.”

    I am just courious. What does that whole statement mean to you?

    • @Blamemeta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Why did you add a comma between Arms and shall?

      Also basic grammar. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Is an independent clause. This is the right.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is a dependent clause and just provides reasoning.

      • @agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thats how I interpret it it too, If they only wanted just the militias to be armed they would have said the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, but they said the right of the people. This is and was intended to be the most prestigious legal document in their proto-country. I have to assume they used the language they did on purpose.

        • chaogomu
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Except that every able bodied man was assumed to be a member of the militia. This is because the idiots who wrote the 2nd amendment didn’t want a standing army.

          Then the war of 1812 happened and everyone was like “oh shit, maybe there was a reason why standing armies exist” and then the 2nd amendment was forgotten for a century. A bad idea that didn’t work out.

          It’s kind of like the 3rd amendment. Important at the time, but actually meaningless in practice.

          • @agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You say it was forgotten for a century as if people stopped buying guns for 100 years because there was a standing army. If the government wanted to get rid of it in favor of a standing army they would have done that, or at least tried. There’s no indication it’s a failed amendment because the US needed an army too. And in fact if it was a failed amendment, where was the uproar at the time? I don’t really recall any historical fight against that amendment.

            • chaogomu
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              It was forgotten. Just like the 3rd amendment was.

              People kept buying guns, but everyone sort of assumed (and rightly so) that the government could ban guns.

              Hell, the shoot out at the O.K. Corral was over gun control, and the Cowboys gang was clearly in the wrong, and all of them were wanted criminals before the shootout.

              But more to the point, the gun ban for Tombstone, Arizona was completely legal.

              All of that is while militias still technically existed. After 1903, militias did not. Which is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 was ruled fully constitutional.

              And that was the final word on the 2nd amendment until a convicted murderer in partnership with gun manufacturers decided that guns for everyone should be the goal of the NRA.

              • @agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                The NFA was to curtail gang violence when organized crime was near its peak, not to mention the prohibited items on it are still prohibited today. You still need tax stamps for silencers, automatic weapons, short barrel rifles, and anything else the government decided to classify there. I don’t know what you think changed legally since then.

    • Jaysyn
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      That was decided by a different SCotUS before I was born. Quite literally doesn’t matter what it mean to us.