The 2a makes more sense in the last few months
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
527 points (96.8% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2412 readers
399 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Reminder that "muh 2a" was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.
Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.
Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn't what they intended, and you shouldn't have it. Like computers; there's no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I'll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn't seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed "heretics", so no, it wasn't strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn't in the equation at all.
It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias,
You clearly forget that they extended that right to artillery as well. You were just as legally entitled to own a field cannon loaded with grapeshot as you were a musket. In point of fact, wealthy people that owned ships could and did outfit their ships with cannon either to be privateers under a letter of marque, or to fight off pirates and the privateers of other countries.
But even at that, at the time when the constitution was written, muzzle-loaded firearms were the pinnacle of war-time weaponry. Bayonet charges were common, and swords still saw extensive use in pitched battles. Not only that, but people were legally obligated to own militarily-suitable arms, and they were expected to train on their own. The concept of having a brace of pistols comes from this era; while they didn't have repeating rifles, they did have pepperbox pistols that could fire multiple times before being reloaded. So this idea that it was not the intent that the people should have access to militarily-suitable weapons simply isn't borne out by an understanding of history.
I didn't claim they didn't want access to military grade weaponry of the time, I said that at the time military grade weaponry was nearly useless without a lot of people. Yes you could have artillery, good luck trying to unilaterally do anything with that without a crew and guard (artillery were very vulnerable without a force backing them up). Good luck with the muzzle loaders when you need to reload without other people to cover
The concept of a lone actor being able to inflict mass casualty just wasn't in the equation back then.
It wasn't necessary for it to be in the equation in the way that you think it wasn't. They could see the past; it was easy to trace the evolution of arms and armor. They could easily see that, in the 1400s, a single knight in armor was more than equal to multiple men at arms, and that the handgonne had entirely changed that equation. Seeing the past, they could easily foresee that the tools of violence would change in the future.
But hey, lets drill down here. The point of the 2nd amendment is twofold; first, the people were intended to be a check against the government, and second, they recognized the common-law right to self-defense that they had taken from English law. Remember that they'd just been through a revolution, and they were well aware that a gov't could become a tyranny (which is exactly where we are very, very rapidly heading); the idea of the people being armed with military weapons meant that it would be more difficult for a hostile gov't to subjugate the people. To that end, militarily useful weapons should have more protections against banning than sporting arms. As to self-defense, well, assault rifles happen to be the most effective tool for that job--as far as defense at home goes--along with 'high capacity' magazines in handguns for carry guns. So even taking your claims at face value, if the founders somehow didn't foresee changes in the tools of violence, they hold no water.
‘And only white landowners will enjoy these rights.’
Yup. The electoral college was the only thing that mattered. Citizens were never intended to have an actual say in who was elected.
To be fair, the thing about guns probably made a lot more sense back then. And freedom of speech is great, until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
They can say whatever they want criticizing the government without retribution from the government is what it means. It was never protecting anyone from openly saying anything they wanted.
You can say you're going to murder your neighbor and be arrested legally and charged legally for it if they find reasonable means you were going to try it.
You can slander/libel someone and legally get sued in civil court as well.
You can say you’re going to murder your neighbor
You're going to murder your neighbor!
Seems like guns make a lot of sense right now too.
The shift in public perception on weapon ownership when they see actual tyrany in america is very interesting. Ive been 100% pro gun and have gotten so much backlash from family and friends for being so. I dont even own a gun and to me it has been obvious that the government and media were using mass shootings (not actually commiting them as far as we know) to disarm the people.
There are and have always been such a large number of safe, moral, and sane gun owners in this country. Normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competatively, design guns, modify them, defend their homes, study weapon history, or even just put them on display. It baffles me that anyone could be so against normal hard working americans doing no harm whatsoever.
Not a single person I spoke with was ever against owning a car when I brought it up. I was always given the same "its not the same thing". The common denominators in vehicular violence and gun violence are mental health, education, and financial status. I dont want to compare numbers on how many people are killed in either situation because it does not matter. Human lives are lost everyday needlessly to both of these. But only guns get talked about.
Curious to know if you or anyone else have recently become pro gun, or have you always felt this way?
I'm fairly left leaning, in the US I'd own a weapon. But only because of how much they are a part of life there. Living in a country where gun ownership is the exception, I'm only pro gun in the sense that I like things that go boom. What I like more is the relative certainty my neighbor won't pull a piece on me on a bad day and we don't have to kit schools out with dystopian crap like panic rooms in case some deranged lunatic rolls up.
Dont know if youve been to the US or know anyone here personally but guns are not as prevalent as you might think. Theyre definitely "around" but id imagine many people could go their whole life without seeing one. Obviously you have states like texas where they have an open carry day, You can see people walking around with rifles and ARs. But not including police officers, and millitary personel. I just dont see them. Your paranoia is justafied tho, we definitely see the worst of humanity often enough.
As an American, I largely agree, but had a story that's related.
We had someone in town for work from another country. He asks us if we carry our guns with us or keep them in our cars, because he really wanted to take a look and maybe go out shooting since his home country would never let him anywhere near a gun and that was like the one top "American" thing he wanted to try while he was here. None of us in the group actually had guns on us, in our car, or at home. This sincerely seemed to baffle him. We gave him an explanation much like yours, that the prevalence of guns might be a bit exagerated in the media, but guns rarely make an appearance, and when they do we generally also get pretty nervous because it's so unusual.
Well this discussion was just coming up on lunch and so we go to drive him to somewhere to eat and we get outside and he asks what all those noises were. "Oh, that's gunfire from the shooting range across the road, we kind of forgot about it and tune it out because we always hear it on days with nice weather".
They're only a part of life for the gun fetishists, who only really sprung up after the assault weapon can was overturned. If you are not seeking them out, in most states, you don't see them ever.
I'm not a recent pro gun lefty. I grew up in a rural area with a gunsmith father. I've owned firearms in the past sorta kinda, but recently picked up an AR and 9mm.
Nice, my grandpa is a gunsmith. I met alot of really nice people through his buisness. I guess that gave me a unique perspective on this debate. Being from north east USA not many people ive spoken to have aligned with me.
Congrats on the purchases I was considering getting a 9mm for home defense in my new location. But ive also been considering less lethal devices since most violent encounters my family members (grandpa side) have had were de-escalated by simply brandishing their weapon. Also my SO is very anti-gun Id want something even shed feel safe to have around or in the worst possible case use.
You could always try a .22? Still fairly lethal, but a lot less intimidating. Air rifles are another option. You can do some damage with them too.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Since you bring up the car analogy, would you be OK with normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competitively, etc carrying liability insurance for the weapons they own?
I wouldn't mind liability insurance for guns if it's similar to car insurance. Car insurance only covers about $30,000 per person injured/killed, maxing out around $60k per incident.
Unfortunately that low payout amount also means coverage is near useless. Especially when insurance coverage doesn't go to the victims but to other insurance companies.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)
view more: next ›