What societies have historically had their citizenry be armed to the extent that the USA does?

What societies have historically had their citizenry be armed to the extent that the USA does?

Also when did the idea of the 2nd Amendment only applying to the National Guard begin?

Wouldn't the ancient greeks with their Hoplites count?

>Also when did the idea of the 2nd Amendment only applying to the National Guard begin?

Faggots are scared of their own citizenry, especially since they can't just drone them or go full Kristallnacht without running the major risk of an angry veteran dude with an AR taking out half your entry team during that crucial first seconds of breaching

>What societies have historically had their citizenry be armed to the extent that the USA does?
If you talk about pre-industrial societies, quite a lot of them, assuming you mean it in the sense that private citizens own extensive armaments, even stuff that would be used on the battlefield, and not in the sense that it was technologically advanced as what you can buy in a gun store. Remember, the idea of a state supported army with issued weapons out of some armory is a relatively modern concept; for a shitton of history, you got called up by whatever means, and you were expected to provide your own arms and armor out of your personal wealth. Places like Republican Rome even had guidelines as to how you should serve and what equipment you needed to own to maintain certain standings as a citizen of a certain class.

>Also when did the idea of the 2nd Amendment only applying to the National Guard begin?
I'm not sure when the notion itself began, but it started to be a feature of judicial attention in the late 19th century. The oldest case I'm aware of that dealt with whether the 2nd amendment applied to individuals or a militia of some sort is Presser v Illinois, back in 1886. Interestingly enough, that case simultaneously upheld the notion that you could not ban ownership of firearms, but a state COULD ban things like drilling to march in formation or other "militia" practices, precisely because there is no link between militia usage and personal ownership in a 2nd amendment framework.

One other thing to tack on the end though; you get a huge upsurge of cases in the subject in the early 20th century, around the 1920s. That's when you start getting Incorporation Doctrine, which extended first amendment notions to state level institutions in a large way. Before that (and Presser talks about this too), there was a strongly held notion that the Bill of Rights only applied to federal government action; and that it would be perfectly A-ok for an individual state to ban guns, just not for Congress to do it.

So the Founding Fathers included pretty much all weaponry at the time, including private warships and weapons like the Girandoni air rifle which was basically a semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round magazine capacity.

My question is what would they think of gun control today? Would they be supportive of it given how deadly weapons are? Would they go full "privatized nukes" on us? Would they support gun control only for black people or something similar?

>So the Founding Fathers included pretty much all weaponry at the time,
That is far from clear. The phrase "keep and bear" certainly seems to imply handheld weapons as included in the 2nd amendment.

>My question is what would they think of gun control today?
Why does this tyrannical government in the capital think it can tell the Sovereign States of the United States what they can do? (Except with more nouns capitalized).

...

S
H
A
L
L

N
O
T

B
E

I

N

F

R

I

N

G

E

D

...

...

>What societies have historically had their citizenry be armed to the extent that the USA does?
>to the extent
Psh.

The US is relatively UNDERARMED in comparison to a lot of older societies. Romans and Greeks relied on Citizen Soldiers. So did Medieval Communes who even made it a requirement for citizenship to own weapons and armor and show up for periodic militia training. Imperial Chinese law enforcement relied on armed civilians first to apprehend the law and Chinese villagers formed small armies to combat gangs of bandits in small wars and even participate in military emergencies..

So I see that alot of early societies had widespread (or even near universal) weapons ownership, but when and why did that change? Democracy and rights have become far more common than they used to be, yet the citizenry is far more disarmed than they've ever been in history, it seems. Why is that?

The role of the state got larger, helped in part by technological advances that made centralizing authority easier to implement. Back in ye olde days, people who lived out in the middle of nowhere mostly had to rely on themselves, with limited support from the government. This meant guns and weapons in general were a necessity.
But with the advent of communication advances, faster transportation methods, and an increasingly larger state, guns became less of a necessity. Then there was the increase in urbanization borne out of the industrial revolution, when rural populations began to move to population centers for jobs.
Coincidentally, urban centers have more criminals (simply due to the concentration of population), which leads to the association of firearms to be the domain of gangsters and cops, not for the average citizen.
Or at least thats how I see it.

The day weapons became expensive

For most of everyone:
1) Centralization of the government. Governments could provide a lot of things out of their own pockets, which included
2) Centralization of the armed forces. Since governments can provide for the armed forces, there's no need for private entities to make up the armed forces of a state. Which relates to
3) Centralization of law enforcement. States now do not need armed civilians to keep the peace.

But that doesn't explain shit like, say, China, as it did all that yet still relied on armed civilians for policing and some measure of military support. Which leads us to

4) Modern weapons and a modern military = necessitated specialization of recruited people. As such civilians couldn't be relied upon anymore to operate complicated weapons systems.

And then you have other local factors. In Europe, rampant crime in 19th Century, in addition to the threats posted by radicals such as anarchists, nationalists, and later on communists, made people agree to stricter arms bans. In Japan, the Feudal Warrior Class wanted to monopolize lethal force in the hands of the state and so banned peasants from owning weapons. In China, the chaos of 19th Century China and Warlordism, in addition to modern weapons capable of turning peasant rabble into serious military threats meant the modern Chinese became in favor of stricter weapons controls.

I like the leg wraps. They're very stylish

I hate Puttees, They're niggerous.

This has some truth to it but there have always a way to get a gun if you really try, even in freedom hating states like CA. All I'll say is that there is a lot of law abiding citizens that do not comply with the draconian gun laws, I think the compliance of criminal scum in LA and San Fran goes without saying.

It varies even outside of Ancient Greece and Rome, which had citizen soldiers, the men of most societies were required to take up arms and defend thier town if needed. Even if there were certain restrictions on what you could have/carry in more peaceful times

>Romans and Greeks relied on Citizen Soldiers

I think this is what the Founding Fathers were shooting for but to be honest the country just got way to big for a Citizen Soldiers to be a viable method of self defense. Maybe in the event of an invasion, civil war or if there's a grievance in which the citizenry decide that armed resistance is the only solution as a last resort but in case like WWII or the wars of the 20th Century? Not so much