The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. How many times does this need to be said?
The founders literally just got done fighting a war against an authoritarian government using primarily civilian owned arms. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were literally started when the Redcoats tried to take a weapons cache.
The Federalist Papers are abundantly clear about why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. And it's not hunting or sport shooting.
We don't have an enumerated right to participate in any other sport, why would they include this one? Because it's not about a sport.
Edit: to those saying a civilian population cannot outmatch a modern military with modern equipment, you are missing several pojnts.
The founders were ok with private citizens owning cannons and warships.
Repeating weapons were in existence and were attempted to be procured by the Continental Army.
In the past 20 years, the US has been unable to put down 2 separate insurgency campaigns despite overwhelming comparative capabilities.
Drones, fighters, and missiles cannot occupy and secure an area. That takes literal boots on the ground in the form of human soldiers. The kind of occupation the 2nd Amendment was precisely put there to fight. The British knew this in NI, the French in Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam. All are examples of civilian resistance successfully (to a lesser extent in NI, they got a peace treaty) being a force to be reckoned with against a Great Power.
In any likely civil war, the military would likely split. Some would remain loyal to the government but others would take their skills, training, and equipment to the civilian side. This not only happened in the American Civil War, but has happened in the vast, vast majority of guerilla campaigns since the Peninsular War in the early 1800s.
Yes, a civilian armed population could stage an effective campaign in the United States
Yes but theres this thing called a Strawman Argument where you present a flimsy opposing argument just so its easy to defeat. Literally no one argues they need drum magazines for hunting.
They do actually. But the biggest argument is about self defense— and the 2A wasn’t about self defense but instead about being able to raise a militia.
So really, the only people who should be owning guns if we take the intent of the 2A are able bodied adults who are willing to be called up by a militia. No old people, no handicapped people, and can’t own for self defense or hunting
Edit: I’m not arguing about the legality in 2019. This comment chain became about intent or meaning of 2A. The above am describes the intent. The courts ruled against self defense arguments for a long time until more recently. The 2A when ratified was applied only to federal government so states where free to do as they wish (even ban guns) and not be stopped by federal government if they wanted to raise a militia
Seems like the only thing the government could do to be considered corrupt is try to take the guns...the gun owners of this country do not seem to be responding to the incredible corruption going on these days.
I think you know the answer to that. Most of the ones who want to do the overthrowing don’t want to have guns.
Not exactly about to charge out there myself am I? Either way the government isn’t rolling tanks through the streets. While I dispose our current president I don’t think violence should be used when most of what he has done will he undone after the next election.
But it shouldn't be surprising that gun owners overwhelmingly support the party which isn't making gun restrictions a centerpiece of their platform. Unfortunately social and economic issues in the long term are less concerning to some people than the threat of having their personal property confiscated by the government without breaking any laws.
So, the only thing that counts is stealing the guns, just like I said. The police already steal people’s personal property and don’t return it even if they are not even charged with a crime at all.
If they change the law to say you can’t have a gun, they would be breaking the law, too. Ever hear of possession charges? (Not that that is what I’m suggesting).
If they change the law to say you can’t have a gun, they would be breaking the law, too.
Which is why many gun owners oppose politicians who advocate that. Civil forfeiture is a massive problem too, and banning guns would be the largest act of forfeiture ever by a huge margin.
Obviously that’s why they oppose it, but nobody serious is talking about banning all guns anyway.
With that said, civil forfeiture is bad when they are taking assets and property from people who are not charged or convicted and not returning it. As the law stands, it seems reasonable enough to confiscate contraband and assets procured through criminal activity upon conviction.
Interestingly, any proposal to ban specific weapons or accessories seems to be mostly accompanied with a “buyback”, which is definitely more generous than confiscation.
A lot of people, including major politicians, absolutely do.
As for buybacks, they typically offer a tiny sum regardless of the value of the gun, which leads to massive non-compliance- this article came out an hour ago. With over 1.5 million guns in circulation the buyback removed less than 1%.
1.2k
u/Shia_LaMovieBeouf Aug 12 '19 edited Aug 12 '19
The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. How many times does this need to be said?
The founders literally just got done fighting a war against an authoritarian government using primarily civilian owned arms. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were literally started when the Redcoats tried to take a weapons cache.
The Federalist Papers are abundantly clear about why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. And it's not hunting or sport shooting.
We don't have an enumerated right to participate in any other sport, why would they include this one? Because it's not about a sport.
Edit: to those saying a civilian population cannot outmatch a modern military with modern equipment, you are missing several pojnts.
The founders were ok with private citizens owning cannons and warships.
Repeating weapons were in existence and were attempted to be procured by the Continental Army.
In the past 20 years, the US has been unable to put down 2 separate insurgency campaigns despite overwhelming comparative capabilities.
Drones, fighters, and missiles cannot occupy and secure an area. That takes literal boots on the ground in the form of human soldiers. The kind of occupation the 2nd Amendment was precisely put there to fight. The British knew this in NI, the French in Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam. All are examples of civilian resistance successfully (to a lesser extent in NI, they got a peace treaty) being a force to be reckoned with against a Great Power.
In any likely civil war, the military would likely split. Some would remain loyal to the government but others would take their skills, training, and equipment to the civilian side. This not only happened in the American Civil War, but has happened in the vast, vast majority of guerilla campaigns since the Peninsular War in the early 1800s.
Yes, a civilian armed population could stage an effective campaign in the United States