• FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    A lack of reasonable regulation There are hundreds of firearms laws on the books. What new law is both reasonable and would accomplish anything?

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Fuck that, no way in hell people would allow authorities to inspect their private property inside their homes as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The “Constitutional” right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it’s for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don’t get a gun.

          • Narauko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.

            If we change the sentence slightly and say “The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed”, would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.

              The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.

              And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.

              • Narauko@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.

                Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” … “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”…“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

                The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The intent was to enable settlers to help genocide the Natives. The Revolutionary War was fought to allow settlers to expand West.