I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
The 2nd amendment LITERALY states it to use against the gov…
Ahem…
Where, exactly?
I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
You are correct, but implying something is not the same as literally stating something
Good explanation. Really no need for the insults though.
Nah, atp Americans that don’t understand their own constitution need to have snark thrown at them.
Being that fucking stupid is costing people their lives.
Truth hurts sometimes
Ahem…
They kinda asked for it.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
Yes, sorry… the militia clause, as its known
The purpose of the militia is to put down insurrection, not to engage in it.
The word “regulated” has had only one actual meaning… the same as it means to regulate interstate commerce.
And only a couple of years later, the militia acts passed.
No it doesn’t. The role of the militias were to be called up to put down insurrection and slave revolts.