I am getting tired of all this 2nd amendment nonsense- particularly from those that can’t seem to remember the first half of it. These immature white men who seem to live in some teenage fantasy world where they will be the hero stopping an evil tyrant.
Let’s face it. When our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment their biggest impetus was fear of a standing federal army. Something we as society- and in particular these self proclaimed experts on and defenders of the constiution acquiesced on long ago.
From everything from the amendment itself to the writings of the founding fathers both previously and afterwards, there is little question of their intent.
so: the 2nd amendment for those that can’t remember the whole thing:
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
As already stated they feared a standing federal army. So they chose instead many small armies- militias. Serving at the pleasure of their states governors. Militias the governor could call for the states defense. Or that the governor could choose to (or choose not to) send to the control of the federal government as needs arose.
And let’s be realistic. At the time america was far less populated and far more rural. There was no rail. No planes. No automobiles. Transport was by foot or horse. No telephones. No tv. No radio. Calling the militia and having them gather could take weeks.
There was little money to provide arms for these militias. And central armories where inefficient at best.
(and while I have never seen any evidence of it being a meaningful factor in the writing of the 2nd amendment, it is worth noting that gun ownership was a pratical reality at the time. From “issues” with native americans to the reality of bears, wolves, cougars and other wildlife most americans today have no real cocept of, to a general lawlessness resulting from everything from many of our citizens being expelled from europe to the actual lack of laws and land rights in much of america…guns were a needed tool of the times)
And of course the right loves to make the claim that mure guns=less crime. Often pointing to just one single study on the matter. When in truth first we must point out that recent data and studies are lacking- due to both laws and pressure from conservatives hamstringing research into the matter. But of the reputable and perr reviewed studies out there the picture is much murkier. From the body of evidence it is impossible to say that more guns, or laws such as concealed carry, have a definitive and meaningful impact either way. In other words- both areas relaxing gun laws and strengthing them sometimes saw increases, sometimes decreases in crime. And of course it impossible to say that guns where the dominant, or even a contributing factor- especially has violent crime has been shrinking nationwide for a mulitude of reasons.
And of course the evidence DOES show that those who keep a firearm in the house, particularly those that keep loaded weapons for protection. are far more likely to to see the gun used for violence against themselves or a family member then they are to ever use it for protection.
I am not an anti gun zealot. And I have a great respect for the founding fathers. Men who were smart enough to fear a standing federal army. Smart enough to call for state regulated militias.
And having studied these men I have no doubt they would be aghast at our modern situation. Our government. And our society. And would be insulted that their words are being used to justify a situation that sees so much violence.
They would not see these people as patriots or heroes. But instead cravens. And traitors to the very ideals they claim to support.