496
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
496 points (97.7% liked)
News
23328 readers
4489 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The right was given when guns were muskets. I have no issue following the forefathers intended right. You may have all the muskets you want but if it's not needed for hunting or defending your home from an intruder then you shouldn't have it. Nobody needs a hundred round clip or full auto for an intruder.
I hate to argue against you because I agree that nobody needs a hundred round clip or full auto for an intruder, but the forefathers' intended right wasn't "people should have muskets". It was much closer to "the people should be armed in case of tyrrany by their government". The intention was for people to defend their other rights by force, making it more difficult for the government (or an invading force) to take over (this was immediately post-revolution mind you and much of the bill of rights was in direct response to british soldiers' activities). Of course they also thought we'd be reforming the government and drafting new constitutions as the culture changed, but of course that never happened.
I am not a historian, just a pedant.
I mean I get you are playing Devil's advocate but its clear we have also moved far those ideals. You are right the founding fathers didn't just say "people should have muskets" but we also have to think in the context of the times, private companies were also able to be armed with naval cannons but in the modern day I don't think Pepsi, Coke, Johnson and Johnson, or Nestle have an battalion of M1 Abrams and F22 raptors and the such. Like we are told we have the right to bear arms and in those days would be able to purchase the same arms that the military uses but I don't think I would want a world where every idiot can somehow afford and operate nukes, apache helicopters, etc. Hell while full automatic weapons aren't "technically" illegal in the US they are heavily regulated and expensive to possess and we the common people are boxed out owning such devices. So its clear we are "compromising" on the vision already quite a bit. Hell I would hope even some of the most die hard conservatives would think a private citizen owning the right such devices would be a bit much as well.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
The founding father's used capitalization to put emphasis on certain terms. It seems to me that they wanted the well regulated Militia, made up of the people, to keep and bear Arms to protect the State and by extension themselves from a tyrannical federal government. If they intended the people to bear arms, why did they add the terms Militia, State, and Arms with emphasis but the people without it?
The only other place in the Constitution that speaks about what constitutes a militia is the fifth amendment, and it specifically only protects a Militia when it is in service to the government, which again is capitalized because they wanted emphasis that it was a proper militia and not a make shift one.
I agree with you, but I wouldn't read that much into their writing. The English language was even more lawless in their day.
In fact, the German-style capitalization of nouns may have just been a stylistic choice by the calligrapher:
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html
What exactly do modern reprints have to do with why the founding fathers capitalize certain words?
No idea, I didn't say anything about modern reprints.
But your quote was specifically about modern reprints and nothing about why they original writers capitalized specific words.
Read it again, they didn't. It was a stylistic choice by the calligrapher.
The Second Amendment was never about hunting or home defense. It was about arming yourself against the government and to defend your other rights by force. In which case you should have every feature you can afford. Also, about muskets, the founding fathers understood the march of progress would eventually create bigger and more powerful smalls arms, they even wanted the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater for their army to stay ahead. To think the second amendment only covers muskets is moronic.
Cool, so we'll be taking those away from law enforcement and the military too then, right?