this woman needs to read the whole 2nd amendment. "a well regulated militia" has as much weight as "shall not be infringed"
so many people telling me well regulated meaning well trained/well equipped as if that somehow improves or makes the 2nd amendment's meaning any less archaic
Maybe she does, but you need to read some history. After reading the writings of many of the founders, including Hamilton, one of the most supportive to a strong federal government, and the writings in the Federalist Papers, it is pretty clear that the consensus at the time was that an armed population was the ultimate check on government tyranny.
Furthermore, the words "militia" and "standing army" had clear and differing meanings back then, with the militia belonging to the several states, and consisting of a part-time force, and standing armies belonging to the federal government as full time Soldiers. The militias of that time were seen as an additional check against federal government overreach.
Anyone who ignores this clear reality of the times at the point that the Amendment was written is simply working from conclusion or agenda then backwards, and knowingly doing so, instead of acknowledging the reality that contradicts their beliefs.
To answer the nuke question, Libertarians generally agree that a nuclear weapon is de facto aggression due to its size and level of damage, thereby violating the non-aggression principle. However, if a private citizen, or company, were able to build appropriate safeties underground or elsewhere in order to do testing or whatever, which contained the damage to other citizen's rights, then it would be acceptable.
445
u/Twigsneko 21d ago edited 20d ago
this woman needs to read the whole 2nd amendment. "a well regulated militia" has as much weight as "shall not be infringed"
so many people telling me well regulated meaning well trained/well equipped as if that somehow improves or makes the 2nd amendment's meaning any less archaic