(02-12-2024, 10:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(02-12-2024, 01:00 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

You are correct that they wrote what they meant.

The constitution does not provide for a permanent, long-standing army. It gave congress the power ""To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since the founders did not advocate for a peacetime standing army, the need for a well-regulated militia was obviously vital for defense of the nation. Citizens needed to be armed and ready to fight if the need ever arose. Why didn't they advocate for a peacetime standing army? Because of its tendency to be abused by tyrants against the people. You know... the same reason you think we couldn't win a civil war against the government.

"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."

So, let me rephrase it for you, filling in the gaps of that which is left unspoken in written text, but well-document in the constitutional conventions, "since we don't think it's wise to have a long standing, peacetime army, due to the various historical examples of abuse by tyrants, we will need and rely on our citizens for defense, so we need to make sure our populace is armed and ready to fight against any threat to the constitution, which could be foreign invaders, but also tyrants who try to usurp power from the citizenry."

They didn't [BLEEP] anything up. There were disagreements between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists, but the part above were the parts to which they agreed. They would have been more disgusted how we use our military as an offensive weapon around the world than they would at the incredibly rare but public abuses of the 2nd amendment. They had murderers back in the 1700s.

Data isn't on your side for this argument. Emotional appeal is your strongest argument, so let's go ahead and get to it.

---