• alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Regulated in that context wasn’t exactly like fishing regulations.

    A regularly trained soldier was considered a regular, as opposed to an irregular who was only trained as they were needed. The founders wanted groups who got together and practiced so they could have a more effective army when they needed kill some indigenous people.

    But why would we care what some 18th century slave owners thought when they were setting up a system to protect their class from the masses, the only guide to how the constitution is interperated is how it affects modern day society and anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or naive.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      They OBVIOUSLY wrote THAT specific Part of the Amendment with common language but the REST of it was OBVIOUSLY written thinking about the Future! That’s why Regulation refers to THEIR Regulation but Arms refers to OUR arms hundreds of years later!

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but the “arms” line was understood to include field artillery in their time. They would not have cared about machine guns, other than thinking how easy it would be to put down a slave rebellion with them.

        Fun Fact: one of the ways you became a commissioned officer at the time was not only buying the commission, thus the name, but outfitting the troops at least partly from your personal wealth. If you feel like getting some historical cultural shock look at how the old style armies were getting their arms, it’s all “Messir Tinglestamp purchased and donated twelve field guns from the proceeds of his harvest to help our campaign against the Godless Savages”

        If you want to make Originalist arguments against the 2nd Amendment your best bet is arguing for another Amendment, which they were absolutely for to acknowledge a changing world and changing needs, not assuming a bunch of dead slavers thought like you.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah dude, founding fathers wanted normal citizens to be able to fire off field artillery. I remember that part of the Federalist Papers.

          We don’t have militias anymore, no matter how much you twist it in your head to justify or rationalize it, it’s just bullshit and you know it.