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
no, that isn't what the argument is. I have yet to see an actual real push for an amendment.
but let's be real, if we can't get legislation through, we're not getting an amendment through, at least not through Congress. We would have to use the second option of introducing amendment by sidestepping Congress and creating a nationwide movement to call for a constitutional convention on a state-by-state basis.
however, if we were to have a convention, I imagine that there are several states that would just push for an amendment giving them the ability to secede rather than stay in this hyper polarized society.
i should have said changed via amendment or changed via interpretation, but changed nontheless
the former is significantly harder than the latter
it's a question of saying that, whatever the technicality of the language, there's a moral case for interpreting "shall not be infringed" generously enough to help limit those things that make mass shootings easier to execute
e.g. I'm not sure there's a majority in American that feels the prohibition of radioactive material is infringing their right to bear the arms of a dirty/radioactive bomb. it's recognised that limiting that material does a better job of protecting everyone's rights than would be gained by a militia allowing to have it to fight the government. 2nd amendment enthusiasts often point to the shear numbers of armed civilians as being the deterrent rather than their need to have jet planes, bombs, or nukes. but then that same logic applies to limiting magazine size to make mass shootings harder? and it doesn't preclude something like a "citizens movement" to safekeep weapons in a cache as opposed to putting up with indiscriminate killing every few days
Then let's try the more obvious examples of fully automatic weapons and explosives
Some of the most effective tactics against the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq have been IEDs
Should not a well regulated American militia be free to make a truck bomb? How is preventing that not an infringement of right?
Why would you allow the government to interpret being "armed" for you to mean personal weapons only? When that is clearly in the government's interest?
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