• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because the second amendment is written like ass, even for back then

      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

      Like, it’s stupidly easy to read that as “because militias are important the state can’t make laws impeding gun ownership”

    • alcoholicorn
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Regulated in that context wasn’t exactly like fishing regulations.

      A regularly trained soldier was considered a regular, as opposed to an irregular who was only trained as they were needed. The founders wanted groups who got together and practiced so they could have a more effective army when they needed kill some indigenous people.

      But why would we care what some 18th century slave owners thought when they were setting up a system to protect their class from the masses, the only guide to how the constitution is interperated is how it affects modern day society and anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or naive.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        They OBVIOUSLY wrote THAT specific Part of the Amendment with common language but the REST of it was OBVIOUSLY written thinking about the Future! That’s why Regulation refers to THEIR Regulation but Arms refers to OUR arms hundreds of years later!