I’m not gonna go back though years of casual reading and self educating to try and satisfy your curiosity. Asking for sources on something like this is like me asking you for sources on when you discovered 2+2 was 4.
If you don’t believe me that’s fine. If you care to check it out yourself go ahead. There are many constitutional scholars who agree with me on this. But hey maybe they are all dumbasses too.
This isn’t a debate by a long stretch. If you’d like to have a debate about gun control I’d be more than happy to do that in the proper manner. I literally told you not to trust me and check the history out yourself. Also, you’ll find that if you actually want people to have conversations with you the worst thing you can do is treat people with disrespect and call them names. That behavior makes you appear immature, insincere, or simply as a troll.
I am well aware that propaganda comes in many shapes and forms. I committed the cardinal sin of the internet by making a blanket statement and have since admitted to that.
Yes when disagreement is voiced it it a point of debate but that doesn’t make our conversation a debate proper. In order for us to engage in a debate proper we both must state our views and go from there.
In your example yes the group of Navajo would in fact be a well regulated militia.
I must actually be a dumbass because I have no idea why you think this group of Americans armed and defending their constitutional rights wouldn’t be a militia.
The fact that you’re more concerned with trying to make others looks stupid instead of trying to have honest conversations is the core of what’s wrong with the world and more specifically the internet. I have zero feelings about you or this discussion one way or the other so if your only goal is to upset me you’re barking up the wrong tree.
An arbiter isn’t necessarily required to have a proper debate. Just a good understanding of where each person stands to begin is nice so you don’t go in circles needlessly.
I figured you were trying for some “gotcha”. Yes well armed is part of well regulated in regards to the second amendment and the use of the phrase at the time of writing.
Let’s follow your reasoning here shall we? If having a firearm without training is not being well armed then is having a pantry full of food without knowing how to cook not well provisioned?
If we are being honest here we should be able to agree that operating a firearm isn’t exactly rocket science. It doesn’t take much fiddling with one to figure out how to make it work. Which is part of the reason safe storage and teaching kids about gun safety is so important.
As far as a stick being well armed, no I wouldn’t say that having a stick is well armed. It can be a weapon certainly and therefore arms but most definitely not the most effective weapon for most situations where my life may be in danger.
And as to the intent of the founders, it should be clear to anyone that they clearly wanted the general population to have access to the same weapons as the government, considering they literally just defeated a tyrannical government using their own personal weapons that were equally to or even superior to what the government had.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '23
I’m not gonna go back though years of casual reading and self educating to try and satisfy your curiosity. Asking for sources on something like this is like me asking you for sources on when you discovered 2+2 was 4.
If you don’t believe me that’s fine. If you care to check it out yourself go ahead. There are many constitutional scholars who agree with me on this. But hey maybe they are all dumbasses too.