What's the historical context (and perhaps relevance) of the second amendment...

What's the historical context (and perhaps relevance) of the second amendment? And how has it shifted from it's inception all the way to modern times?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>What's the historical context of the second amendment?
Keeping the citizenry armed to fight against tyrants.
>And how has it shifted from its inception all the way to modern times?
People no longer think the citizens of the U.S. could defeat the government in a war

fpbp thread over

The context was that the US didn't want a large standing army and the potential political baggage associated with it so they advocated for the idea that people can be armed in order to have militias to defend the nation and national interests. It also functioned as a personal right so one can hunt and defend themselves on the frontier of America, though this is more implied by the state and circumstances of America at the time, not in any written form. The US government did however reserve the right to confiscate arms under premise that they weren't extant within the context of a militia. This means that if something like the Whiskey rebellion happens, or something similar, the government can disarm citizens if it sees the need (using the justification that the arms weren't used in defense of national interests or within a sanctioned militia). Part of the concern for having a standing army was the idea of the tyrant. Implied by statements by the founding fathers and the general circumstances of the American revolution, the 2nd amendment was in the nations best interest.

The relevance of this is lessened because we have a standing military, an established police force, a more time-tested government, and no frontier. The 2nd amendment did not foresee the societal changes the US would have and the technological changes firearms have had.

Small arms can be much more effective now than it was then. Militias were often directed to turn over heavy ordinance over to authorities and more central militias because the government was wary of it being in the hands of small unaccounted for militias. This idea, though not in the 2nd amendment, was instituted by early American and can somewhat be applied to modern heavy weapons, possibly even common small arms. However, this same technological leap has made potential tyrants more powerful and thus providing a potential contradiction in the intent of future legislation.

One could easily argue that the modern US government is not susceptible to such political crises that made the founding fathers speak of "tyrants" and 'kings" however one cannot tell far into the future either.

READ ARTICLE I SECTION VIII OF US CONSTITUTION

READ SECOND AMENDMENT

READ HOW BRITS TRIED TO DISARM CITIZENS

BOI DID YOU LITERALLY SKIP THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION PART OF BOTH WORLD HISTORY AND US HISTORY? HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS ISNT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.

sorry I'm being a dick, but ffs, this isn't that hard and is quite clear

The founders would burn DC to the ground if they were here now.

lots of tyrany and the elected government doesn't represent the people.

militia act 1793

a law that literally states that men have to own a musket, ammo, powder, and a sword.

The founding fathers had more restrictions on who could vote and hold office than we do and most definitely didn't stand up for their voters interests as much as you imply. Also, a corrupt 2-party system was bad and not what the founders wanted but its not tyranny in the sense that they meant. We still actually vote our leaders in.

we vote for the candidates that the oligarchs picked. they legislate the way the oligarchs want.

states are basically powerless now.

foreign entanglements everywhere.

>Bernie didn't get elected so the government is tyranny

I did, had the deal with the public education administration under the Bush administration. I never learned any of that (even this ). Fuck, most people I know from said school didn't even hear about dictators like Mussolini or Franco; only Hitler and Stalin (barely anything on Lenin -- no mentions of Trotsky whatsoever). I even remember being taught that Julius Caesar was the first leader of Rome (I even remember thinking he helped build it from scratch); only to have to find out the truth later. Even Christopher Columbus' history is morphed to make him look like a saint.

I actually have to come to Veeky Forums - Veeky Forums to learn what I didn't in school. Welcome to the USA.

Spoilers: they don't teach it because the little retards wouldn't learn it.

This is why educational tracking is a good idea.

fuck that Champagne Socialist

jim webb and rand paul were the only half way decent candidates.

Good post.

That girl's head does not look naturally placed on her body

It's more relevant today than the 3rd amendment

He said, blissfully unaware of the drunk privates that would otherwise be quartered in his home.

the only 3rd amendment case i can think of. is when prison guards went on strike. so the government sent in troops to work in the prison and they occupied the guard barracks. the striking guards argued it was unconstitutional. since those barracks were their homes.

The thing is we no don't use mercenary armies, we have a national army.

Yup!
/thread

I think the national guard is a bastardized version of what is meant by the 2nd amendment.

I think the Founders would have been happy to see cities develop their own civil defense forces (armed militia to handle riots, foreign invasion, disasters, and threats from a tyrant) but I think they would be alarmed by militias existing outside of civic structures (religious militias, racist militias, etc).

NRA is a terrorist group

@3483226

1903 Dick Act.

feds took over the state militias and effectively ended legitimate militia.

before then. anyone with enough money could form a militia regiment and get a commission in the state militia. a lot of civil war and spanish american war units were raised like this.

Go to bed Hillary

>The 2nd amendment did not foresee the societal changes the US would have and the technological changes firearms have had.
MUH FOUNDING FATHERS ONLY HAD MUSKETS THEY COULDN'T HAVE PREDICTED ASSAULT RIFLES

You could use this exact same argument to discount the 1st amendment too, that the founding fathers did not foresee societal and technological changes, so that now "hate speech" can abound and should be regulated differently from free speech.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't actually say anything about firearms it says "arms" as in military weapons and "arms" included everything up to and including the most powerful weapons of war at the time. The USA government is in breach of the 2nd Amendment as it does not allow its citizens to have nukes, rocket launchers and nerve gas.

>People no longer think the citizens of the U.S. could defeat the government in a war
That's bullshit, everyone thinks their particular ideological group is stronger than the government, they just think the people they OPPOSE are incompetent fuckwits that can be put down with ease.

get off twitter and 4chink Donald

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 181610

>Keep and bear
Try reading closer next time. Or the first time.

/thread

And how does that mean that Jefferson would approve of reform of the second amendment?

It implies that he'd be okay with us changing the 2nd amendment in light of "new discoveries [being] made," like assault rifles. But either way, there's probably just as many of the founding fathers who would be originalist.

It doesn't imply shit.
"New discoveries" don't suddenly make the 2nd amendment subject to review, because guess what, it was possible to massacre hundreds of people just as quickly in the 18th century.

>place keg of readily available gun-powder in their house
>blow them the fuck up

People should really read more about the Antebellum South if they think Southerners like Jefferson would be okay with banning guns just because they fire at a faster rate.

>ywn do long hunting walks with this cutie
>ywn make her laugh with silly jokes
>ywn roll in the grass with her

why live anons...

She should be killed for being a woman desu

Get your own qt.

it says militia, ppl keeping grandfathers arsenal isnt a militia
theres no organisation

they are just entirely consumed by the gun lobby

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Here's a good example of it being applied

People that bealive weapons at home can protect them against the "tyranny of the government" or "foreign invasion" are retarded.