• the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Militias at the time of the revolution weren’t organized. They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army. The 2nd was also intended to function as a check on state power. All of this is detailed in the federalist papers, written by the same authors as the constitution.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Just calling people into a group with a unified purpose and sense of responsibility reads as “organizing” to me.

      Getting a group of people to put up posters or fliers is organizing. It doesn’t need cards or logos or process.

    • Left as Center@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Militias at the time of the revolution weren’t organized.

      Militias are organized, else it’s just an angry crowd.

      AFAIK it’s more about being abled to form already armed militia rather than procure weapons to arm the militia currently owning one pitchfork to share.

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        They’re organized when they’re needed, by calling up and organizing a bunch of locals. These people weren’t part of a national guard or anything, they weren’t trained, they didn’t have contracts. The founders intended for those locals to provide their own weapons.

    • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Cool. So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times. The 2nd Amendment is not for regular civilians to have access to firearms.

      Thanks for proving my point.

      They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army.

      But when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed. Those farmers were not armed before conscription. So your “right to bear arms” is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

      Thanks for clearing that up for all the Americans reading this.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed

        I agree with you except on this point. The second amendment says “keep and bear arms”. And through reading probate inventories of 1774, 54% of male estates included at least one gun. There was a lot of casual firearm ownership in the colonies.

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times.

        I don’t have to say that, the federalist papers said that.

        So your “right to bear arms” is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

        “We may someday hand you a gun” isn’t a right to bear arms lmao

        • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          So your “right to bear arms” is only in emergency situations and not every day life.

          “We may someday hand you a gun” isn’t a right to bear arms lmao

          If you understand your constitution, finish the amendment. I dare you to look it up and write out the rest of it after “the right to bear arms”.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        A lot of people owned their own personal guns.

        And you keep saying farmers as if it was a specific group of the population. Like 90% of the population was farmers then.

        At this point I would venture to say your argument is just wrong.

        • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t keep saying “Farmers”. The person I replied to said Farmers were given guns to defend the Republic in the event of defending it. Which is what the second amendment is based on.

          Once again, a dumbass American further proves they don’t even understand their own constitution.

          • SalamiDommie@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Wait wait wait… You aren’t American and you are trying to argue our own political system to us?

            This is amazing - probably the best bot/NPC I’ve ever come across.

          • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I did.not say they were given guns. I said they were given the right to bear arms in case they were called up to join a militia.

            You said they were given guns, and I said that doesn’t count as a right to bear arms.