• SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.

    My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.

    • eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:

          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.

          It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.

          Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.

          • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.