105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
105 points (97.3% liked)
Politics
358 readers
237 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well in the context of the time "well regulated" meant something completely different. You have to be careful not to make the same mistake.
I keep hearing this, but "regulated" has meant basically the same thing since we first took the word from Latin. If by "the context of the time" you mean "as defined in contemporary dictionaries", then the meaning is basically the same.
Despite the popularity of the claim, I have yet to see an actual piece of evidence that "well-regulated" was universally understood to mean "well-organized and well-stocked", and not "directed by rules".
Interpreting language from a legal document on any other basis but contemporary dictionary definitions is disingenuous at best, and at minimum requires substantially more evidence than I've ever been presented.
It shows up with both a modern meaning but also the meaning of "armed, trained, and disciplined" in the writings of contemporary politicians at both the federal and state levels. Example: Federalist #27 has Alexander Hamilton using it more in the modern sense while he quotes an argument from someone else using it in the antiquated one.
Ultimately it won't matter either way because that part of the amendment is not even required for the rest of it to survive. If you were to push this issue, you may even discover unintended consequences you probably do not actually want, like the formation of more militia groups.
If you actually want to implement gun control measures you need to throw gun owners a bone. Rebuild the trust, otherwise they will fight even the tiniest measure with the maximum effort, to the extent that a YouTuber nearly displaced an incumbent Texan politician over it.
I do want that. Preferably in the form of State Guards, where citizens are locally trained to safely and responsibly use and maintain firearms, as well as physical training and tactical coordination.
Personally, I think the argument that "the citizens are the militia" is half right. I think every citizen should be a part, in some capacity, of their State Guard. Nothing too crazy, 3-6 months of training and then a period of reserve during which you can be called upon to serve. Not unlike the brief mandatory military service required in other countries.
In the context of the time, "gun" meant something completely different.