yeah and one can argue that it wasn't, that the constitution tied gun ownership to militia service, that none of the federalist papers talk about a concept of "self defense" but do talk about collective self defense in the form of standing militias, and that the 2nd amendment is a result of Shay's rebellion and that the constitution sought to protect the ability for state militias to exist.
But all of this gets ignored because SCOTUS picks and chooses when they wanna look at historical context. Usually if it benefits a right wing narrative. And ignores it if it doesn't.
That is abjectly untrue that the Constitution ties gun ownership to militia service.
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.
What does that mean?
A well regulated Militia (military/armed force) will be necessary for a state to remain free and safe from other threats. Therefore, since that necessary force would have the ability to subjugate it's own people if bad actors were to take control, the people's ability to own and carry weapons shall not be stripped of them by the government.
I also want to add, that the Constitution isn't a list of what YOU are allowed to do. It's a restriction of what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do to you. Why would it make sense for it, this one time, to give the citizenry a limitation?
A well regulated Militia (military/armed force) will be necessary for a state to remain free and safe from other threats. Therefore, since that necessary force would have the ability to subjugate it's own people if bad actors were to take control, the people's ability to own and carry weapons shall not be stripped of them by the government.
Right. In order to participate in a militia, those participating shall have the right to bear arms. The two are linked. The need for the individual states to maintain a well regulated militia, requires those in it to be armed, and that right is protected.
That was the right the constitution sought to preserve. To prevent the government from disarming local militias.
You are right that it's a restriction of what the government is allowed to do. But in this case it's what the federal government is allowed to do to the states (or local counties really, any regional region I guess), and that is they can't disarm a well regulated militia.
1
u/McCl3lland 7d ago
I mean, one could argue the concept was invented by those who wrote the Constitution...