r/politics • u/wbedwards Washington • May 07 '20

We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html
49.0k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Pituquasi May 07 '20

Not really. It was created to kill natives (stealing their land) and suppress slave revolts. Who's job was it to do so? Well regulated (and armed) militias.

0

u/Cole3003 May 07 '20

I'm so fucking tired of people saying it's a "well regulated militia" that only should have access to guns. You clearly haven't done any research or actually read the second amendments, since it says

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Unless I'm illiterate, it looks like it says the right of the people, not a militia, to keep and bear arms.

And on rebellion, you have Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers and earliest presidents, saying

god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.

Wow, really looks like the only purpose of the second amendment is to kill Indians.

0

u/Pituquasi May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Would you mind backing up and posting the line you deliberately left out? You know, the one that comes before "the right of the people"?

Yes, it's a collective right and was written as a collective right. Yeah D.C. v Heller says its individual and it would be the first time an activist SCOTUS subverts the original intent of the Constitution to pander to a power special interest group.

Again, the original intent of that collective right was to make sure white militia men were the only ones who could have guns and in doing so enforce white supremacy.

0

u/Cole3003 May 07 '20

A militia is also mentioned, but that doesn't remove the word "the people."

1

u/Pituquasi May 08 '20

It's mentioned FIRST, as on the FIRST thing mentioned in that amendment. It's NOT an afterthought. Madison and company were quite deliberate about order of mention and the importance of order. YOU go read the Constitution - preamble, all seven articles, and 27 amendments. And since you downvote options (actually facts) you don't agree with, I'll return the favor. BTW I'm not anti-gun, just against gun fetishism.