History of the 2nd Amendment

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

Even governor of California Ronald Reagan signed into law restrictive gun control laws in the 60s, but no one then or now was calling him a tyrant, were they?

of course Reagan signed that into the law because they didn’t want Black people carrying guns, because it’s always been a close connection between gun carrying and white supremacy, slave patrols growing into police departments, you name it. Obviously the party of crazies and fascists and racists doesn’t want anyone, especially kids, to learn actual history so they just send it down the memory hole like Orwells 1984, but this is all our history and it is true.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jefferson and Madison crafted the bill of rights and the second amendment was obviously intended, as explained in their correspondence and in the correspondence and public statements of members of Congress at the time, to avoid the potential undemocratic overthrow of the government by a standing army that was common throughout centuries of European history. That’s why the second amendment refers to a “well regulated militia” in order to keep a “free state”, meaning free from potential invasions, which the young United States learned was inadequate after the war of 1812, after which they instituted standing armies.

how is it again that the gun fanatics and death cult members can refer to a second amendment that refers to “well regulated“, and then be against almost all government regulation of those same weapons? Because facts and history don’t matter to these people. They love violence and they love war and they want their guns to enforce their white supremacy.

all this total bullshit about a right to bear arms mainly to be able to fight against the government itself is absolute hogwash.

They feared a dictator arising and using a standing army to destroy democracy itself, and we have that right now after January 6 and with a Wanabee dictator and sociopath in trump.

this half an hour program, which is easier to listen to on Spotify, but assuming that not everybody uses Spotify here it is on YouTube, summarizes a great book from two years ago covering the Second Amendment.

 

[ihhawk]

If Jefferson had Twitter, the 1st amendment wouldn’t be there either

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

If Jefferson had Twitter, the 1st amendment wouldn’t be there either

Lol!

if Twitter and FB and 4Chan etc existed then, and all these all-powerful corporations which have purchased congress itself via Citizens United etc, zero chance for compromise and the existence of the United States.

Real freedom (freedom for, not freedom from) and democracy are so delicate, we’ve taken them for granted, or worse, just give up.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Nobody has ever been to answer for me why I can’t own a rocket launcher…

And I keep waiting for a politician to just be honest with us and explain how insignificant your arsenal is against the US government. We should make fun of those people more. I can at least get there with people that want a gun to protect them from other crazy people if it hits the fan, but the US government? Come on man…

 

[Finance85]

Even governor of California Ronald Reagan signed into law restrictive gun control laws in the 60s, but no one then or now was calling him a tyrant, were they?

of course Reagan signed that into the law because they didn’t want Black people carrying guns, because it’s always been a close connection between gun carrying and white supremacy, slave patrols growing into police departments, you name it. Obviously the party of crazies and fascists and racists doesn’t want anyone, especially kids, to learn actual history so they just send it down the memory hole like Orwells 1984, but this is all our history and it is true.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jefferson and Madison crafted the bill of rights and the second amendment was obviously intended, as explained in their correspondence and in the correspondence and public statements of members of Congress at the time, to avoid the potential undemocratic overthrow of the government by a standing army that was common throughout centuries of European history. That’s why the second amendment refers to a “well regulated militia” in order to keep a “free state”, meaning free from potential invasions, which the young United States learned was inadequate after the war of 1812, after which they instituted standing armies.

how is it again that the gun fanatics and death cult members can refer to a second amendment that refers to “well regulated“, and then be against almost all government regulation of those same weapons? Because facts and history don’t matter to these people. They love violence and they love war and they want their guns to enforce their white supremacy.

all this total bullshit about a right to bear arms mainly to be able to fight against the government itself is absolute hogwash.

They feared a dictator arising and using a standing army to destroy democracy itself, and we have that right now after January 6 and with a Wanabee dictator and sociopath in trump.

this half an hour program, which is easier to listen to on Spotify, but assuming that not everybody uses Spotify here it is on YouTube, summarizes a great book from two years ago covering the Second Amendment.

View embedded media

How disingenuous, misleading, and even insulting.

I've posted quotes from the founders many times about 2A, especially what was meant by the term "well regulated", as well as "militia". Well regulated meant well trained. Militia referred to all able bodied men.

 

[NCHawk5]

Nobody has ever been to answer for me why I can’t own a rocket launcher…

And I keep waiting for a politician to just be honest with us and explain how insignificant your arsenal is against the US government. We should make fun of those people more. I can at least get there with people that want a gun to protect them from other crazy people if it hits the fan, but the US government? Come on man…

They’re not going to bring a tank into the neighborhood. It would be armed infantry who would be outnumbered. You take away guns, those infantry are not in danger any longer. Police state- imagine China if their citizens had guns. They’d be much more free.

 

[mnole03]

They’re not going to bring a tank into the neighborhood. It would be armed infantry who would be outnumbered. You take away guns, those infantry are not in danger any longer. Police state- imagine China if their citizens had guns. They’d be much more free.

The Palestinians have guns, and Caterpillar makes an armored bulldozer.

 

[NCHawk5]

The Palestinians have guns, and Caterpillar makes an armored bulldozer.

That’s a different scenario. Outside invaders of territory, not an already established government regulating its own citizens. It’s a lot harder to have an armed encounter with soldiers and their own people.

Why would the government bulldoze properties? Then they can’t rob us blind in taxes.

 

[SoDakHawk]

Even governor of California Ronald Reagan signed into law restrictive gun control laws in the 60s, but no one then or now was calling him a tyrant, were they?

of course Reagan signed that into the law because they didn’t want Black people carrying guns, because it’s always been a close connection between gun carrying and white supremacy, slave patrols growing into police departments, you name it. Obviously the party of crazies and fascists and racists doesn’t want anyone, especially kids, to learn actual history so they just send it down the memory hole like Orwells 1984, but this is all our history and it is true.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jefferson and Madison crafted the bill of rights and the second amendment was obviously intended, as explained in their correspondence and in the correspondence and public statements of members of Congress at the time, to avoid the potential undemocratic overthrow of the government by a standing army that was common throughout centuries of European history. That’s why the second amendment refers to a “well regulated militia” in order to keep a “free state”, meaning free from potential invasions, which the young United States learned was inadequate after the war of 1812, after which they instituted standing armies.

how is it again that the gun fanatics and death cult members can refer to a second amendment that refers to “well regulated“, and then be against almost all government regulation of those same weapons? Because facts and history don’t matter to these people. They love violence and they love war and they want their guns to enforce their white supremacy.

all this total bullshit about a right to bear arms mainly to be able to fight against the government itself is absolute hogwash.

They feared a dictator arising and using a standing army to destroy democracy itself, and we have that right now after January 6 and with a Wanabee dictator and sociopath in trump.

this half an hour program, which is easier to listen to on Spotify, but assuming that not everybody uses Spotify here it is on YouTube, summarizes a great book from two years ago covering the Second Amendment.

View embedded media

You don't understand the meanings of words and your entire take is a dichotomy.

Well-regulated does not mean to regulate and restrict weapons. Well-regulated means the militia should be well-drilled, prepared, and ready to go, think "Minutemen". Actually, the opposite of what you think it means. They wanted the citizens to be armed to the teeth. They actually were in those times as the Battle of Lexington & Concord was because the British marched out of Boston to seize the arms, cannon, and powder the citizens had amassed.

Then you bring up Trump being a dictator and trying to destroy democracy and take over the country. Well, using your reasoning wouldn't it be a good thing for the citizens to possess the arms and means to resist someone like that? Like you said, Trump tried to foment an insurrection but was not successful. Maybe the next person isn't as incompetent as Trump and can actually pull it off.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You don't understand the meanings of words and your entire take is a dichotomy.

Well-regulated does not mean to regulate and restrict weapons. Well-regulated means the militia should be well-drilled, prepared, and ready to go, think "Minutemen". Actually, the opposite of what you think it means. They wanted the citizens to be armed to the teeth. They actually were in those times as the Battle of Lexington & Concord was because the British marched out of Boston to seize the arms, cannon, and powder the citizens had amassed.

Then you bring up Trump being a dictator and trying to destroy democracy and take over the country. Well, using your reasoning wouldn't it be a good thing for the citizens to possess the arms and means to resist someone like that? Like you said, Trump tried to foment an insurrection but was not successful. Maybe the next person isn't as incompetent as Trump and can actually pull it off.

Of all the people on this site I would bet on being a plant it's this guy. EVERYTHING he post is how democracies are shitty and how our founders ****ed up. He does nothing but push propaganda. Check it out.

 

[SoDakHawk]

Of all the people on this site I would bet on being a plant it's this guy. EVERYTHING he post is how democracies are shitty and how our founders ****ed up. He does nothing but push propaganda. Check it out.

I'm the plant or the OP is a plant? I know I'm real and have been around for over 15 years on this site.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I'm the plant or the OP is a plant? I know I'm real and have been around for over 15 years on this site.

OP. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Pay attention to what he post, it is always about what is broke with America.

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

Keep in mind also that guns were very central to the project of genocide. I’ve mentioned that George Washington made his wealth by being a land surveyor and ordering in armed settlers to “rid the land” of the “population” and was referred to as “village destroyer” by the indigenous peoples because he managed actual genocide. Everything George Washington had, he stole, and was built on the backs of slave labor as a slave owner. We are taught to view him as a great man, but for the most part he was an absolute monster.

from 1492 through the 20th century, the best scholarly estimates are that over 175 million indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere were exterminated.



it was always about white supremacy. Guns were always about white supremacy and genocide and war, lynchings of Black people then and now by the police, which grew out of slave patrols.

Face the facts. If you have the stones and the spine and the self-respect.


“In sum, for the entire present-day United States from 1492 to the present, the total number of Indigenous deaths includes the 12 million estimated by Thornton; the additional approximately 790,000 deaths that occurred in Hawaii, Alaska, in Puerto Rico; and about 200,000 excess deaths since 1900. Thus, the Indigenous Holocaust in this country appears to have taken around 13 million lives.

Signally, this horrific number of deaths was only a very small portion of the mind-numbing Holocaust throughout the Western Hemisphere. When Thornton’s estimated hemispheric population decline of 70 million is multiplied by 2.5, the total number of Indigenous deaths throughout the Western Hemisphere between 1492 and 1900 appears to be about 175 million.67 And the number of Indigenous people who have died in the hemisphere because of war, repression, racism, and harsh conditions of life since 1900 surely runs into the millions.

By any reckoning, the Indigenous Holocaust in the Western Hemisphere was, as Stannard has pointed out, “the worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed.”


kind of makes those cowboys and Indians movies from the 50s and 60s land differently now, doesn’t it? All those tough guys from Texas in their Stetsons Gunning down Native Americans Are no different from Nazis mowing down six million Jewish people and Romani and gay people and millions of political prisoners in the second world war.

All about them guns.

I’d love to hear how the gun nuts and Trump death cultists and insurrectionists and fundamentalist Christian white supremacists spin this reality and actual history.

https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

@SoDakHawk


See what I mean. If there are bots on this site sent to spread controversy, it's that ****ing guy.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Keep in mind also that guns were very central to the project of genocide. I’ve mentioned that George Washington made his wealth by being a land surveyor and ordering in armed settlers to “rid the land” of the “population” and was referred to as “village destroyer” by the indigenous peoples because he managed actual genocide. Everything George Washington had, he stole, and was built on the backs of slave labor as a slave owner. We are taught to view him as a great man, but for the most part he was an absolute monster.

from 1492 through the 20th century, the best scholarly estimates are that over 175 million indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere were exterminated.



it was always about white supremacy. Guns were always about white supremacy and genocide and war, lynchings of Black people then and now by the police, which grew out of slave patrols.

Face the facts. If you have the stones and the spine and the self-respect.


“In sum, for the entire present-day United States from 1492 to the present, the total number of Indigenous deaths includes the 12 million estimated by Thornton; the additional approximately 790,000 deaths that occurred in Hawaii, Alaska, in Puerto Rico; and about 200,000 excess deaths since 1900. Thus, the Indigenous Holocaust in this country appears to have taken around 13 million lives.

Signally, this horrific number of deaths was only a very small portion of the mind-numbing Holocaust throughout the Western Hemisphere. When Thornton’s estimated hemispheric population decline of 70 million is multiplied by 2.5, the total number of Indigenous deaths throughout the Western Hemisphere between 1492 and 1900 appears to be about 175 million.67 And the number of Indigenous people who have died in the hemisphere because of war, repression, racism, and harsh conditions of life since 1900 surely runs into the millions.

By any reckoning, the Indigenous Holocaust in the Western Hemisphere was, as Stannard has pointed out, “the worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed.”


kind of makes those cowboys and Indians movies from the 50s and 60s land differently now, doesn’t it? All those tough guys from Texas in their Stetsons Gunning down Native Americans Are no different from Nazis mowing down six million Jewish people and Romani and gay people and millions of political prisoners in the second world war.

All about them guns.

I’d love to hear how the gun nuts and Trump death cultists and insurrectionists and fundamentalist Christian white supremacists spin this reality and actual history.

https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

Name a country in the world that wasn't founded by one group of people killing off another group of people and claiming the land for their own?



The only bullshit you are going to come up with are uninhibited islands.

 

[NCHawk5]

@SoDakHawk


See what I mean. If there are bots on this site sent to spread controversy, it's that ****ing guy.

Isn’t it billanole? I thought that was made clear yesterday. They’re both nuts who hate America, wouldn’t be surprised.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Isn’t it billanole? I thought that was made clear yesterday. They’re both nuts who hate America, wouldn’t be surprised.

He responded to a post as billanole, posted several times under billanole, and then switched back to this guy. (Is my belief) I know billa got a time out but I don't think Mike had quite enough to prove they are one and the same.

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

@SoDakHawk


See what I mean. If there are bots on this site sent to spread controversy, it's that ****ing guy.

He doesn’t strike me as a bot. But the full time posters like a few of the trumpist gunlovin racist trolls sure seem like they earn their salaries on this stuff. Some have thousands and thousands of posts. Sheesh.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Nobody has ever been to answer for me why I can’t own a rocket launcher…

And I keep waiting for a politician to just be honest with us and explain how insignificant your arsenal is against the US government. We should make fun of those people more. I can at least get there with people that want a gun to protect them from other crazy people if it hits the fan, but the US government? Come on man…

Why stop there? I mean, if I'm to run a proper militia, I'm going to need a supersonic jet loaded with smart bombs to even have a chance.

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

Name a country in the world that wasn't founded by one group of people killing off another group of people and claiming the land for their own?



The only bullshit you are going to come up with are uninhibited islands.

You are correct that every major capitalist state today has gained or consolidated its power through imperialism genocide and oppression. I suppose that means in your book that it’s right and that’s the best we can do, correct? If we continue on this path, we will slide into civil war and world war and we will destroy the rest of the ecosystem and we will all die.

As much as gaslighting and trolling is annoying, I can’t imagine that anyone on these boards would want the above.

Columbia University press recently published the most extensive study of the actual cost of imperialism. For example India by good estimates was responsible for 25% of global GDP at one point, which is why the British were so interested in controlling it, as well as in the century before the UK took over the first true corporate venture in history, the dutch east India company, which itself operated its own private mercenary army, the white west eliminated or preyed upon black and brown people all over the world.

yes, the roots of both the modern state and corporations are as brutal and bloody as imaginable, and they remain so today. We canning must do better or we truly are all doomed. And we need to provide compensation to the people who have been appropriated from either recently or historically because the extent of the inequality will only make certain mutually destructive and apocalyptic war.

I am not a utopian. I am a pragmatist. I can see very clearly that what we’ve done and what we continue to do is not just unsustainable, but sliding faster than I ever imagined towards general annihilation and ecocide.

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India

And lied about it.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[NCHawk5]

You are correct that every major capitalist state today has gained or consolidated its power through imperialism genocide and oppression. I suppose that means in your book that it’s right and that’s the best we can do, correct? If we continue on this path, we will slide into civil war and world war and we will destroy the rest of the ecosystem and we will all die.

As much as gaslighting and trolling is annoying, I can’t imagine that anyone on these boards would want the above.

Columbia University press recently published the most extensive study of the actual cost of imperialism. For example India by good estimates was responsible for 25% of global GDP at one point, which is why the British were so interested in controlling it, as well as in the century before the UK took over the first true corporate venture in history, the dutch east India company, which itself operated its own private mercenary army, the white west eliminated or preyed upon black and brown people all over the world.

yes, the roots of both the modern state and corporations are as brutal and bloody as imaginable, and they remain so today. We canning must do better or we truly are all doomed. And we need to provide compensation to the people who have been appropriated from either recently or historically because the extent of the inequality will only make certain mutually destructive and apocalyptic war.

I am not a utopian. I am a pragmatist. I can see very clearly that what we’ve done and what we continue to do is not just unsustainable, but sliding faster than I ever imagined towards general annihilation and ecocide.

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India

And lied about it.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You are correct that every major capitalist state today has gained or consolidated its power through imperialism genocide and oppression. I suppose that means in your book that it’s right and that’s the best we can do, correct? If we continue on this path, we will slide into civil war and world war and we will destroy the rest of the ecosystem and we will all die.

As much as gaslighting and trolling is annoying, I can’t imagine that anyone on these boards would want the above.

Columbia University press recently published the most extensive study of the actual cost of imperialism. For example India by good estimates was responsible for 25% of global GDP at one point, which is why the British were so interested in controlling it, as well as in the century before the UK took over the first true corporate venture in history, the dutch east India company, which itself operated its own private mercenary army, the white west eliminated or preyed upon black and brown people all over the world.

yes, the roots of both the modern state and corporations are as brutal and bloody as imaginable, and they remain so today. We canning must do better or we truly are all doomed. And we need to provide compensation to the people who have been appropriated from either recently or historically because the extent of the inequality will only make certain mutually destructive and apocalyptic war.

I am not a utopian. I am a pragmatist. I can see very clearly that what we’ve done and what we continue to do is not just unsustainable, but sliding faster than I ever imagined towards general annihilation and ecocide.

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India

And lied about it.

www.aljazeera.com

I always forget is it socialism or communism you think is the great answer? It's socialism isn't?

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Why stop there? I mean, if I'm to run a proper militia, I'm going to need a supersonic jet loaded with smart bombs to even have a chance.

Dat mil surplus though.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

He doesn’t strike me as a bot. But the full time posters like a few of the trumpist gunlovin racist trolls sure seem like they earn their salaries on this stuff. Some have thousands and thousands of posts. Sheesh.

I'm talking about you and you incessant need to constantly talk about how shitty democracy is and how our founding fathers were wrong.

 

[BelemNole]

We have a well regulated militia - the US military. They require annual firearms training and require personal firearms to be locked up on base.
But some 18 year old? He can buy a long gun at a big box store on his birthday, get no training and walk around with it.
And yet some people bitch that the laws need to be relaxed even further. Talk about a mental heath crisis, the gun nuts need to be evaluated.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

You are correct that every major capitalist state today has gained or consolidated its power through imperialism genocide and oppression. I suppose that means in your book that it’s right and that’s the best we can do, correct? If we continue on this path, we will slide into civil war and world war and we will destroy the rest of the ecosystem and we will all die.

As much as gaslighting and trolling is annoying, I can’t imagine that anyone on these boards would want the above.

Columbia University press recently published the most extensive study of the actual cost of imperialism. For example India by good estimates was responsible for 25% of global GDP at one point, which is why the British were so interested in controlling it, as well as in the century before the UK took over the first true corporate venture in history, the dutch east India company, which itself operated its own private mercenary army, the white west eliminated or preyed upon black and brown people all over the world.

yes, the roots of both the modern state and corporations are as brutal and bloody as imaginable, and they remain so today. We canning must do better or we truly are all doomed. And we need to provide compensation to the people who have been appropriated from either recently or historically because the extent of the inequality will only make certain mutually destructive and apocalyptic war.

I am not a utopian. I am a pragmatist. I can see very clearly that what we’ve done and what we continue to do is not just unsustainable, but sliding faster than I ever imagined towards general annihilation and ecocide.

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India

And lied about it.

www.aljazeera.com

Genocide is right! Now if only there was a way to fight back against perpetrators of genocide. Some sort of easy-to-use device that would allow the average person to defend themself so genocide does not happen to them. Hmmmmmm…

 

[ConvenientParking]

I'm talking about you and you incessant need to constantly talk about how shitty democracy is and how our founding fathers were wrong.

That's pretty piss pants of you.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

That's pretty piss pants of you.

Like I said, of all of the people on this site.. Chris with his twitter, ciggy with his opinion articles, Huey flat out saying we shouldn't have to work and should all just have nice shit, ect, this David dude is the one that screams person planted to promote anti amierican beliefs. Calling it as I see it, pay attention to its post.

 

[ConvenientParking]

Like I said, of all of the people on this site.. Chris with his twitter, ciggy with his opinion articles, Huey flat out saying we shouldn't have to work and should all just have nice shit, ect, this David dude is the one that screams person planted to promote anti amierican beliefs. Calling it as I see it, pay attention to its post.

Anti-American? Because he doesn't worship the founders and is critical of capitalism? He's a leftist. That's all. Democrats (particularly in Iowa) aren't actually very leftist, that may be why it seems he's out of nowhere

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Anti-American? Because he doesn't worship the founders and is critical of capitalism? He's a leftist. That's all.

Just keep paying attention.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

We have a well regulated militia - the US military. They require annual firearms training and require personal firearms to be locked up on base.
But some 18 year old? He can buy a long gun at a big box store on his birthday, get no training and walk around with it.
And yet some people bitch that the laws need to be relaxed even further. Talk about a mental heath crisis, the gun nuts need to be evaluated.

This.

And how did, "well regulated" turn into no regulations at all?

 

[seminole97]

Obviously the party of crazies and fascists and racists doesn’t want anyone, especially kids, to learn actual history so they just send it down the memory hole like Orwells 1984, but this is all our history and it is true.

Can you address this part of history?

It seems that federal jurisprudence just a few decades from the adoption of the Bill of Rights doesn’t follow your novel legal theory that the right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms was not an individual right.

The Dred Scott decision didn't just discuss whether or not a former slave could be a citizen.

It discussed what that would mean:

In that decision the court observed the rights of citizens:

‘persons…, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’

If this novel legal theory were correct (gun ownership is tied solely to militia service) Taney's Court would have nothing to fear with regard to former slaves being armed if they could only do so under the stipulations of the Congress or legislature. But he observed no such limitation. You can’t find it in the writings of the Founders a few decades prior either. It’s a whole cloth invention that requires ignorance of the history of the revolution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[seminole97]

This.

And how did, "well regulated" turn into no regulations at all?

Are you aware that the second amendment, as submitted for consideration, had three distinct clauses?
Affirmation of the militia principle, guarantee of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and a conscientious objector consideration.
The last part was only controversial because it was argued a future Congress may try to declare who was and was not ‘religiously scrupulous’ and attempt to deny them their right to arms. To preclude this remote possibility it was stricken from the final version. Now you want to redefine the militia from how it was understood then, and argue that is cause to deny the rights of the people. Exactly what Elbridge Gerry feared would happen with the ‘religious scruples’ clause!

 

[notlongago]

Even governor of California Ronald Reagan signed into law restrictive gun control laws in the 60s, but no one then or now was calling him a tyrant, were they?

of course Reagan signed that into the law because they didn’t want Black people carrying guns, because it’s always been a close connection between gun carrying and white supremacy, slave patrols growing into police departments, you name it. Obviously the party of crazies and fascists and racists doesn’t want anyone, especially kids, to learn actual history so they just send it down the memory hole like Orwells 1984, but this is all our history and it is true.

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jefferson and Madison crafted the bill of rights and the second amendment was obviously intended, as explained in their correspondence and in the correspondence and public statements of members of Congress at the time, to avoid the potential undemocratic overthrow of the government by a standing army that was common throughout centuries of European history. That’s why the second amendment refers to a “well regulated militia” in order to keep a “free state”, meaning free from potential invasions, which the young United States learned was inadequate after the war of 1812, after which they instituted standing armies.

how is it again that the gun fanatics and death cult members can refer to a second amendment that refers to “well regulated“, and then be against almost all government regulation of those same weapons? Because facts and history don’t matter to these people. They love violence and they love war and they want their guns to enforce their white supremacy.

all this total bullshit about a right to bear arms mainly to be able to fight against the government itself is absolute hogwash.

They feared a dictator arising and using a standing army to destroy democracy itself, and we have that right now after January 6 and with a Wanabee dictator and sociopath in trump.

this half an hour program, which is easier to listen to on Spotify, but assuming that not everybody uses Spotify here it is on YouTube, summarizes a great book from two years ago covering the Second Amendment.

View embedded media

So what you're saying is, gun control is rooted in racism.

 

[notlongago]

This.

And how did, "well regulated" turn into no regulations at all?

Do we need to rehash the "how was 'well regulated' defined in the 18th century"?
Also, do you need someone to list all of the regulations we currently have? Or are you just being hyperbolic?

 

[Finance85]

This.

And how did, "well regulated" turn into no regulations at all?

Well regulated meant well trained.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Are you aware that the second amendment, as submitted for consideration, had three distinct clauses?
Affirmation of the militia principle, guarantee of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and a conscientious objector consideration.
The last part was only controversial because it was argued a future Congress may try to declare who was and was not ‘religiously scrupulous’ and attempt to deny them their right to arms. To preclude this remote possibility it was stricken from the final version. Now you want to redefine the militia from how it was understood then, and argue that is cause to deny the rights of the people. Exactly what Elbridge Gerry feared would happen with the ‘religious scruples’ clause!

But that doesn't answer the question. As @BelemNole points out, even the military regulates weapon access, training protocols for weapon use, etc. If the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite for forming a well regulated militia, why would people's rights not fall under the same "well-regulated" stipulation called for in the amendment?

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Do we need to rehash the "how was 'well regulated' defined in the 18th century"?
Also, do you need someone to list all of the regulations we currently have? Or are you just being hyperbolic?

Sure. Go ahead and list them.

 

[notlongago]

Sure. Go ahead and list them.

Wanna start with the NFA?

 

[seminole97]

But that doesn't answer the question. As @BelemNole points out, even the military regulates weapon access, training protocols for weapon use, etc. If the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite for forming a well regulated militia, why would people's rights not fall under the same "well-regulated" stipulation called for in the amendment?

If the individual right to keep and bears fell under such regulations (as you mean the term) why was the Taney court concerned about former slaves becoming citizens and gaining the rights detailed in the decision absent such regulations?
Did the Supreme Court of the 1850s just not realize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was solely related to militia duty? How did they make this simple error? Are there other writings we can find from that time period, or the decades prior upon adoption of the Bill of Rights, for a legal interpretation of this right as you now insist it be viewed?