[artificialLimbs]

Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.

[ryan_lane]

The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.

[svieira]

The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...

[SideQuark]

The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.

Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.

Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.

The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.

[vel0city]

Does it say "the right of the well-regulated militias to bear arms" or "the right for the states to bear arms"?

I'm for a lot more gun control than what we have today, but it's "the right of the people" in the text.

[mbs159]

What are the odds of winning against a tyrannical government that has UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters and jets?

[SideQuark]

100%. The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force. Same in Vietnam.

The US populace is vastly larger and better armed and capable than Afghanistan.

The US military requires a massive economy to function. If it tries to attack itself, those little armed people could stop it, the economy would crash, and the US military would crumble without needed support and supplies.

A final issue is the US troops would lose a lot of soldiers if they were told to go attack fellow citizens. The soldiers would quit, would hesitate, would not want to kill people they view as their own people.

So armed citizenry absolutely have major power against the govt.

Finally, if you were in a country where the govt set out to kill its citizens, would you rather have arms or be completely unarmed?

[ta20240528]

Quite good actually, except the prize is that you'll end up like Haiti.

[artificialLimbs]

Citizens should be allowed to own UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters, and jets. It says in the text: "shall not be infringed." Besides that, who do you think is going to do the fighting, exactly?

[koolba]

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.

[SideQuark]

You should learn about the source and context of that quote. It does not mean what you think it means.

For example, https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

[michaelhoney]

and yet, what have the NRA types done so far about the tyrannical government