this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
844 points (98.0% liked)

memes

10668 readers
2348 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
844
Do it... (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because historic context is relevant in court cases, really easy to show 200+ years of it not being interpreted that way

Its a very poorly written sentence, likely on purpose to force interpretation by judges

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I'd argue it's pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it's how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren't the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.

However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That's where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.