politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I mean, it's Charlie Kirk, but still, what a stupid thing to put in the Constitution if it's for that reason. What about a plebiscite to kick out some rogue government? Nah, let's give guns to the people so they can make a Civil War whenever they feel like it.
Well, discounting the fact that it probably did also serve as means self-defense in an era and place where any form or central peacekeeping force would have logistical difficulties coming to anyone's rescue in a timely manner:
Way back when the colonies had newly and violently won their independence, the idea of just voting a corrupt government out of power would have been laughable to them: What if that government prevents that vote from taking place at all? Why would it respect what a bunch of unarmed civilians have to say? How would those civilians stand up to the might of a professional army under control of that government?
Because of those concerns, they greatly reduced the size of the army after the war was over, so no central government could wield such power again. Instead, citizen militias were formed that, if necessary for defense, would convene and fight together, but couldn't individually take over the country. Thus, there needed to be a constitutional right for those militias to arm themselves. Essentially, it was a way to decentralise military power.
It should also be noted that "arms" back then will not have been the automatic guns we have today. A single gunman wouldn't have done as much damage in the same time as modern-day shooters can. As so many other laws, it's something made ages ago and never adapted to the changing times.
(But also, I'm not really sure how you'd hold such a plebiscite today either. Even if there was some law to formalise it, I imagine it would face the exact same issue: being suppressed by said corrupt government.)
Yes, the whole 'well regulated militia' part is key, and is pushed aside.
In fact, if Minnesota had their state guard still, could be awfully handy right about now... Though it looks like the federal military frowvs upon states making significant investments along those lines...
But in general, that was written at a time when they didn't imagine maintaining a sufficient federal military and when, like you say, the best firearm a civilian could have rivaled the firearms the military could have and, in an individual context, were generally less useful than blades, since reload time made them impractical for a one to many engagement.
Yeah, obviously the federal government and its organs would prefer to centralise power. That's not a (good) reason to give up state power, particularly given the historical context, as is now becoming painfully obvious.
In a way, it's a far more macabre version of the motivation behind the Fediverse: Central power is much easier to abuse.
Yeah, just saying how things pivoted from the 'founding fathers'. Back then regional militias seemed a grand idea to not have to deal with national defense and individuals specifically weren't really an explicit thought because no one had reason to be worried about a man with a muzzle loaded musket. Now they pretend it was exclusively about individual rights to personal scale firearms, but shy away from any organized military that could pose a plausible threat.
And this is why the USA keeps making trouble in foreign lands. The establishment keeps repeating they live in a democracy, but the people can't change things, not really. In the XX century, Vargas Llosa called the Mexican establishment the "perfect dictatorship", because one party was the only option, nevertheless, elections were held. I think it now suits the USA. Their political spectrum is so narrow, that they believe they elect between two parties with opposed ideologies. They are barely opposed outside the USA.
Honestly, it seems like they are two peoples tired of fighting each other.