Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Marakesh 𓅦 | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 The Second Amendment starts out by referencing "a well-regulated militia." Would an armed uprising by the people constitute "a well-regulated militia"? If not, the argument of the Left seems to be that the Second Amendment does not apply to those wanting to take up arms against the government. The militia is to be well-regulated and organized, with it's leaders appointed by the government, and fighting on behalf of the government.
▲ ▼
asourcefamiliarwiththematter | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 In the context of the 1780s-90s:

Militia is the whole body of free people who could be called up for military service

Well regulated means something closer to well-armed than "subject to lots of regulations"

And, the First War of Secession (in the 1770s) certainly suggests that militias might oppose the government
▲ ▼
Marakesh 𓅦 | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Yes, but they changed all that with the Constitution and the Militia Act. Governors were the comanders-in-chief of state militias and the President over them all (it may not have started out that way but the laws were changed over time to make it that way today). I may be wrong, but I don't think Founders were contemplating independent militias but rather rather those under state government control, and ultimately under federal control. I'd be happy to be shown that's wrong.

I think nostr:nprofile1qqsym07t03wahqjfl8r7hrppuqvlpralklk9mm25pzmpgkgtawx3d9gpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx77r5wghxgetk9uzy9auh is right on natural law grounds, the natural right to self defense, but I think if you try to argue on Constitutional grounds it's like going to court against the government, when they are a party to the complaint and also the judge (how is that fair or just?). You'll only win if they allow it.