Sure, but that’s MUCH closer to the stated goal I mentioned “fight of the current fascist regime” than the proposed supposed reason for its existence “to quell slave rebellions”
Your opinion isn’t really relevant though. That’s just history. That’s why the second was written. They are correct. Patrick Henry was trying to derail ratification of the constitution in the Virginia legislature. The second was James Madison’s way of getting around Patrick’s argument about slave rebellions. That’s just historical record. It’s cold hard fact. You should look it up.
I would also argue with your contention because actually the wording does suggest safety from a slave Uprising more than your supposed Rebellion against the federal government. I mean look at the wording militia and security. That’s not about rebellion. That’s about self-defense. About having a standing Force. Because that’s the other thing about the Second Amendment it’s not about individual gun ownership. That’s a modern interpretation
You seem to accept a hermeneutics of innocence towards the US and its ideology, fundamentally. When the constitution talks about the right to bear arms, in a militia, in the context of slave uprisings and settler-empire conflict, it’s actually a far sighted stroke of genius. The founding fathers knew 250 years later suburban dads would need a gun to protect their McMansion from inner city thugs. No, they weren’t coming up with extra-historical wisdom, they, like the many founding philosophers and practitioners of liberalism, were cruel slavers, atrocious exterminators, and elitists who thought they knew best. History doesn’t go away because you close your eyes and ignore it. The constitution or supposed founding values not being applied on so many occasions from lynchings to foreign occupations isn’t because “America is an ongoing project, a living document,” it’s because countries are what they do and who they represent. As opposed to pieces of paper. I have no sympathy for these viewpoints because you immediately drop the hermeneutics of suspicion on any critics of the American nightmare. If in Cuba the churches are empty, religion is being suppressed. If they’re full, people are rejecting their atheistic ideology. Funny how that turns out. American institutionalists keep crying.
The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to put down slave rebellions. Don’t kid yourself into thinking it had some nobler purpose.
The people with the guns would shoot the people who want to overthrow Trump
Sounds like you should be armed then.
that’s not what’s written but Ok
“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.”
Vague on purpose.
Sure, but that’s MUCH closer to the stated goal I mentioned “fight of the current fascist regime” than the proposed supposed reason for its existence “to quell slave rebellions”
Your opinion isn’t really relevant though. That’s just history. That’s why the second was written. They are correct. Patrick Henry was trying to derail ratification of the constitution in the Virginia legislature. The second was James Madison’s way of getting around Patrick’s argument about slave rebellions. That’s just historical record. It’s cold hard fact. You should look it up.
I would also argue with your contention because actually the wording does suggest safety from a slave Uprising more than your supposed Rebellion against the federal government. I mean look at the wording militia and security. That’s not about rebellion. That’s about self-defense. About having a standing Force. Because that’s the other thing about the Second Amendment it’s not about individual gun ownership. That’s a modern interpretation
You seem to accept a hermeneutics of innocence towards the US and its ideology, fundamentally. When the constitution talks about the right to bear arms, in a militia, in the context of slave uprisings and settler-empire conflict, it’s actually a far sighted stroke of genius. The founding fathers knew 250 years later suburban dads would need a gun to protect their McMansion from inner city thugs. No, they weren’t coming up with extra-historical wisdom, they, like the many founding philosophers and practitioners of liberalism, were cruel slavers, atrocious exterminators, and elitists who thought they knew best. History doesn’t go away because you close your eyes and ignore it. The constitution or supposed founding values not being applied on so many occasions from lynchings to foreign occupations isn’t because “America is an ongoing project, a living document,” it’s because countries are what they do and who they represent. As opposed to pieces of paper. I have no sympathy for these viewpoints because you immediately drop the hermeneutics of suspicion on any critics of the American nightmare. If in Cuba the churches are empty, religion is being suppressed. If they’re full, people are rejecting their atheistic ideology. Funny how that turns out. American institutionalists keep crying.