this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
193 points (95.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34914 readers
1255 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian Edit: I'm not advocating for violence. More so "a well regulated militia" which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stinerman@midwest.social 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

No...no it did not.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

-June 8th 1789, James Madison

-Early draft of the 2nd amendment.

[–] CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I would love to see a source on a state blanket banning firearms post bill of rights.

Because that did not happen.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Don't worry they won't be able to find it.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia... the members of the militia weren't full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time.. probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home. The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it's own. This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized.