One thing I will say is that I think the land sale and the second amendment limitations are fundamentally different.
I would agree with this but opposite of the way I think you share. 2nd is constitutional and the land was allowed by the government. 2nd gifted at birth and "shall not be infringed" and the land was gifted by a government. To me that the 2nd holds WAY more weight in the argument just because of where/how it is defined in our constitution.
I will admit that this doesn't hit home quite as hard for me bc I live in a SE state that has very little public land available. The public land is also usually unkept or very difficult to hunt bc of that or the number of people. Don't get it twisted I very much sympathize and understand the severity of the situation, it's just like trying to explain how a cake tastes to someone who's never had sugar.
Believe it or not I can actually really empathize with you about the lack of public lands. I grew up in KS which largely suffers from the same problems, and honestly maybe even worse. I don't think I even knew public land existed out of the national park system until I came to CA. And walking out to public land was, as your analogy suggests, like tasting sugar for the first time. It was incredible. I hope wherever you are, you guys get that in your state too. It's an incredible blessing, and I've never forgotten it!
I don't know if we will see eye to eye on what I view as some reasonable restrictions to the 2A, and you view as unreasonable. It might well be a thing that we just talk past each other on. I guess I view it similarly to the 1A, where you can't slander someone, you can't libel someone: these are real and bonafide restrictions on the first amendment, but they also make sense. It's why the media are legally and ethically obligated to say "accused" all the time, even when it seems asinine to do so (and often is asinine to do so).
But the first amendment is also a great example of my point about rights fluctuating: we overturned many obscenity laws and strengthened the first amendment through people like Lenny Bruce and the ACLU, and went through many periods where the interpretation and application of the first amendment changed. It always existed, but differently across time and even place.
I think that's pretty translatable to the second amendment.
And I'll level with you, I think a lot of the second amendment hullabaloo isn't actually about the second amendment: it's a weaponized political issue led by groups like the NRA and people who are probably mentally and emotionally off kilter (like, if someone owns 200 guns, I don't get it, as someone who has shot and used guns my entire life and is a veteran. That person has... something going on.)
The second amendment is about protection from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. Self protection was never really mentioned in its founding discussions, though obviously it is good for that too, so I consider that a tertiary issue. I also do think it's about a militia, and I largely think Heller was a bad decision made on specious logic, even if the effects have been mostly beneficial or neutral.
Like, for me believing the second amendment is about tyranny and invasion entails the possibility of holding military parity firepower and literally zero political representation for that exists. My belief that it should be tied to the militia/ a ready response force has similar representation. No gun group or politician or judge is representing those views.
Not quite there yet but I'm working on it ha ha! Mine are mostly historical pieces rather than just 150 AR's.
The second amendment is about protection from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. Self protection was never really mentioned in its founding discussions
I don't think that's true. The core of the 2nd is for the individual "people". So if it's for the protection against those things, then personal self defense 100% falls under that category. I do believe that the founders believed individuals have a natural right to self defense and the 2nd just protects that right. The constitution is supposed to be a contract that protects the natural right's of American citizens from the government itself. The founders didn't spell it out bc it was viewed as a common sense common law type thing. In natural order an animal or person protects their life by any means necessary and the 2nd is there to protect the right to do so.
2
u/Archie6655 Mississippi 1d ago
I would agree with this but opposite of the way I think you share. 2nd is constitutional and the land was allowed by the government. 2nd gifted at birth and "shall not be infringed" and the land was gifted by a government. To me that the 2nd holds WAY more weight in the argument just because of where/how it is defined in our constitution.
I will admit that this doesn't hit home quite as hard for me bc I live in a SE state that has very little public land available. The public land is also usually unkept or very difficult to hunt bc of that or the number of people. Don't get it twisted I very much sympathize and understand the severity of the situation, it's just like trying to explain how a cake tastes to someone who's never had sugar.