Originally posted by babybunnies
No, the second amendment was meant for Militias, not for citizens, and was designed so that Militias would always have the weaponry available to wage
war against a FOREIGN Government, such as the British.
A clarification here, for those who may confuse similar words, perhaps having been forced to attend public schools.
"Militia" is not the same as "Military", and certainly not in today's sense, as in the armed forces of a "nation".
This notion that the Second Amendment was meant for "militias only", is a recent one, due to concerted efforts to either eliminate, or neutralize
Hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, because I realize many people have succumbed to this interpretation after having it repeated so often, but
it is just ignorance really, being exploited by those who have bigger fish to fry.
The good news is that ignorance is at least theoretically curable!
Let's think about context
. Back in 1791, how many people living in the Colonies, uh er, the "united States of America", actually thought
they were "Americans"? In fact, they STILL thought of themselves as very British!!
Controversial idea? Not really, just common sense. The new "nation" over in post-revolutionary FRANCE also had briefly put aside their monarchy,
but if you asked these people "who" they were, they would tell you that they were French! No, really, you can trust me, they did think of
themselves this way, and still do today.
How do we know that the "American" mind-set was not at all like it is today? Well first, it hardly makes sense that what we know today could be
anything like it was two centuries ago. But there is lots of old correspondence between people back then, and they still thought of themselves as
very English, and many truly imagined that their new nation wasn't going to last. Perhaps some have seen the Mel Gibson movie, "Patriot", that
might help give a sense of what I'm talking about. It's a good reason why even the concept of "traitor" really wasn't appropriate in most
circumstances, and this was certainly recognized by everyone, including Washington.
Let us also recall how Washington feared, with good reason, that they would try and make him King! Would such an idea even enter the mind of an
"American" of today? Very different mindset, different identity.
By the time the War of 1812 came, two decades later, things had "begun" to change, with some Americans actually hoping Napoleon was going to invade
Britain, overthrow the monarchy, so they could all be "one" again. So, an American "identity" was finally coalescing, and yet the old yearning
was still there in some ways. And there was outrage over the impressment of sailors, although many in the new nation STILL retained allegiance to
Britain, even during this new war of 1812! In fact, they thought that THEY were the "patriots", not the traitors.
WHY does any of this mean anything when it comes to some old Amendment? Because the very notion of the mother country being "foreign" would have
been utterly ABSURD to people living at that time.
READ the writings of the founders of America if you would know their thoughts, which ALSO form a context for what to make of this Amendment of
controversy today. You will find that they were very clear in identifying why arms were necessary, and for whom they were most likely to be used
against: Their own potentially tyrannical government. Because that's precisely what the British really were to these primarily English people of
200 years ago, living in "the Colonies". The "British" were not a "foreign" nation, they could perhaps be better understood by a modern
American as sort of like the federal government is today, but this might only be understood by those who retain the notion of states deserving the
Not enough? Go yet a bit further! Let's think somewhere in the neighborhood of "four-score-and-twenty"...
Ever hear of the War for Southern Independence
? No? How about the Civil War? Yeah. Well, if you would dare read the writings of people
leading up to this conflict, you would find, yet again, exactly what these people thought.
As Southerners know, they had every right to secede from what was supposed to be a VOLUNTARY "union". As most Southerners "should" know, it
wasn't about slavery primarily, there were various factors. But the biggest factor of all wasn't in the South. He was sitting in the White
Known as the First American Tyrant by many Southerners, there is a case to be made here, based on Lincoln's actions, which to today's brainwashed
product of public school indoctrination probably sounds wonderful, "preserve the union", but back then such a thing sounded literally
No, I'm not trying to get the South riled up (I'm sure She shall rise again!), but that's another story.
I hope that any fair-minded person can see the many reasons that point to a far different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than is currently being
Stick to the traditional interpretation, the one held for a long time, the one held by those who had every reason to understand it best.
And take your modern, silly "plausible" interpretations, and deposit them accordingly in your local trash bin.