No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia… the members of the militia weren’t full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time… probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home.
The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it’s own.
This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized.
The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.
Those first four words are always left out when the gun nuts talk about it. Without those 4 words, it fundamentally changes the meaning.
No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia… the members of the militia weren’t full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time… probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home. The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it’s own. This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized.