• Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don’t think it’s a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of ability. Militant action requires a lot more than simply owning a gun.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      It was a powerful lie to convince most gun owners that a “right to a well-regulated militia” meant being able to individually own a gun and never be trained to use it or organize.

    • Goodeye8@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      I imagine ICE would be less openly hostile when there would be a legitimate risk of getting shot by a vigilante.

      Not saying it justifies having the amount of guns Americans have, but since they already have them they should be used for the reason they have them, to oppose a tyrannical government.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Heretic!

      If those gun toting hicks could read. They’d be very upset.

      It’s almost as if some form of militia, possibly a well regulated one, would also be necessary.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        “Well regulated” in the 1700s sense or “well regulated” in the “I think the government should have direct control over the militia that is supposed to violently fight the government” sense? Because imo one seems more viable than the other.

        • TheRealKuni@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          The second amendment was never intended to let the people overthrow the government. It was intended to serve instead of a standing army for the defense of the republic. Madison didn’t want military power centralized in the Federal government.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Not only did he not want it centralized, it was really uncommon and expensive to have a standing professional army at the time. The US was a new nation, and it was pretty poor. The idea they’d be able to have a federal professional military, at least one large enough that you don’t need supplemental militias, would probably be laughed at.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 days ago

            Ehhh the federalist papers make it pretty clear that the second amendment and the aforementioned militias were for threats both foreign and domestic. Plus, considering the whole “starting a revolution against what was at the time ‘their own’ country” thing alone I think they recognized the possibility that they may need to do it again in the future.

            “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” and all that.

            -Thomas Jefferson