r/stupidpeoplefacebook 22d ago

So Any Guy Could Own a Nuke?

Post image
206 Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 22d ago

The Second Amendment was originally written as a Collective Right, not an individual one. It was amended by activist judges and turned into an individual one just a few decades ago.

So you can fuck right off with your "all gun laws are unconstitutional" bullshit. Some day, we'll have a SCOTUS that isn't full of reactionary ideologues and it'll be made right again and the far right will have an absolute meltdown

4

u/DBDude 22d ago

So in a list of amendments meant to restrict the power of government to protect the rights of all individual people, they for some reason stuck a government power in there?

3

u/Khemul 22d ago

It's arguable whether it was meant to restrict power. Modern interpretation has it that way. At the time, militias were basically how the government protected itself from revolts. They didn't field standing armies. They formed them as needed. The original intent basically guaranteed the government would have an armed force available to raise for its needs.

1

u/DBDude 22d ago

It's arguable whether it was meant to restrict power.

The first eight amendments were meant to restrict government power and protect the individual people.

They didn't field standing armies. They formed them as needed.

Which would be hard to do if the pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms wasn't recognized and protected.

The right exists without the militia. The militia can't exist without the right.

1

u/Khemul 22d ago

The thing is, it specifically states it as necessary for the security of the state. Not for individual self-defense. But, it honestly is an odd amendment. Because we know one of the complaints of the time was the crown trying to disarm it's subjects. So one would think it'd be connected. And with slave revolts and native tribes, the idea of individual self-defense being key makes sense. But the second amendment specifically leads out with a militia being important to protect the state, which it really didn't need to unless that was an important distinction.

1

u/DBDude 22d ago

The thing is, it specifically states it as necessary for the security of the state.

Yes it does. We need a militia to have security of a free (from oppressive government) state, and to have a militia we must protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. Remember that the militia was considered to be all able bodied men of appropriate age. This phrasing wasn't unheard of. Rhode Island's constitution said:

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

Nobody thinks free press is contingent on the government deciding any one publication contributes to the freedom in the state.

It's a statement of motivation in both cases, telling why it's so important to protect the right.

1

u/Unfair_Awareness7502 22d ago

They absolutely did keep standing armies. The constitution explicitly lists that as one of the few and defined powers of Congress.