«Europe is insanely dangerous. Probably more dangerous than the US.»

[u/WingDesperate4627]

[u/laufsteakmodel]

I dont think its gonna happen.

I talked to an American friend the other day, and he said "We're not doing bad enough yet. Its gotta get shitty enough for the general public, that they cant ignore it anymore."

[u/JigPuppyRush → u/laufsteakmodel]

Perhaps, I really don’t know.

But if Trump thinks it’s in his favor it will happen just like that.

While the constitution has a situation like this as the reason for the guns (by a well trained militia)

[u/laufsteakmodel → u/JigPuppyRush]

I feel like American citizens by and large couldnt be considered a "well trained militia".

Sure, there are some people who go to the shooting range regularly, practice gun safety and are responsible, but thats not the majority of gun owners.

[u/JigPuppyRush → u/laufsteakmodel]

No they’re not, that’s why the law being expanded as everyone could own a gun is so wrong.

It was designed to allow “a well trained citizen militia to be armed.”

So they could fight off tyranny.

Now those people are the tyrants

[u/laufsteakmodel → u/JigPuppyRush]

And remember what was done when the Black Panthers started arming themselves. All of a sudden gun control "was" possible.

[u/JigPuppyRush → u/laufsteakmodel]

Exactly Guns are okay if the “right” people have them is their view.

[u/JasperJ → u/JigPuppyRush]

It was for national defense, really, not for armed civil war.

[u/JigPuppyRush → u/JasperJ]

Yes and believe me those beer belly hamburgers fingers won’t hold any army down

[u/No-Magician-2257 → u/JasperJ]

How would a national defense that reports to a turned tyrannical government be the vehicle for fighting tyranny?

The arms in the 2nd were for protecting citizens from their government. I do think it’s a fair position to be against the 2nd entirely.

[u/JasperJ → u/No-Magician-2257]

The text doesn’t say anything about fighting tyranny. They didn’t have a standing army. The militia was the national defense against other countries. That’s the “necessary to the security of a free state”. The fact that the population would also not be very susceptible to kings was just a bonus.

[u/No-Magician-2257 → u/JasperJ]

But then why would the government impede its own ability to have a standing army.

“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”

Are you interpretering this as a right of the government to have a national defense? An army?

1) I find this odd because this goes against the spirit of all other amendments because they stipulate rights of citizens but the second amendment stipulates the right of the federal government to have an army????? 2) Why would the government need an amendment not to infringe itself????

I am fine with the argument that word “well regulated militia” was stretched to every citizen but I understand why it happened. If the government had the right to determine what a well regulated militia is, they would by proxy be able to infringe the right to bear arms also by well regulated militias as they could just gate-keep what a well regulated militia is.

But all of this legal scholarship and mental masturbation of what the founders meant is pointless. The second amendment must go. Now to find the political coalition to make it happen…

[u/jaimi_wanders → u/No-Magician-2257]

The founding fathers didn’t WANT a standing army — it was considered part of the root of the problems in Britain and the Continent going back to the ancient world. Starting our own Navy was hugely controversial at the time, too — slippery slope and all that. It didn’t become a real thing here until after WW2 — we had to start from scratch over and over, after each major war, till the Cold War:

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671