And the country. I’m old, but not so old I walked the prairies with the Calvary. That said- we tend to forget that the “Wild West” days of of spitting and leaches and sheriffs and lawless towns was the late 1800’s still. Less wild than the mid 1800’s- but the Marshals and bandits, prospectors and inventors of the age in their 20’s and 30’s were the same guys in politics and military command in WW1. The soldiers of WW1 were largely the same age range for WW2. We are not so far removed from those times, only a few generations of adults stand between a world without the telegraph and the world today.
The right to arms isn’t some antique from the 1700’s- it was a fundamental need through much of our history right into the modern age. Well into the 1950’s and even 1960’s there were plenty of places in the US that we’re almost unreachable by any means. We STILL have towns and communities without mail, and places where without satellite there is no internet or cellular data. The interstates, improved transportation, and developments through the 70’s on have continued to “make the world smaller and our reach larger” but literally millions of Americans still live in rural and wild areas and rely on guns for protection from wildlife, hunting, and protection where services like law enforcement are not to be found easily.
And while one may not be hunting game to survive in the jungles of Central Park New York- the basic principal of freedom and... well... anything can happen. This pandemic shows us- and it easily could have been or could get worse. But it came out of nowhere- and a year ago, you’d be seen as crazy for worrying about a toilet paper shortage or getting shot over asking someone to stand 6 feet away.
Here we are. You’re crazy until you aren’t. Of all the things that COULD happen- the right to arms is designed to make sure every American can choose to have the option of suddenly shit goes south in a way that maybe- like this pandemic- comes out of nowhere and is surrealistically unfathomable.
My ancestors were disarmed before they were slaughtered. Much like German jews, Soviet Ukrainians, Cuban land owners, and millions of others in the 20th century.
The German government disarmed people to keep the Nazis down, the Nazis came to power and ensured only they were armed.
The Red Russians seized weapons after the people's revolution, not even a generation later they orchestrated famines and kept the victims from fleeing.
And even now, we teeter precariously close to fascism or anarchy depending on the day and state.
In Canada we just terrorize anyone masquerading as a storm trooper, hold them at gunpoint, and make sure they regret ever thinking they could do something as psychotic as hold a plastic gun.
.
Gotta nip these revolutionaries in the bud to keep em in place
This entire century in general was a age of madlads. The Founding Fathers may have drank a little too much pirate rum and snorted a little freedom, suddenly there's English tea in the harbor and talk about gun confiscation. Mad times all around.
Well can anyone explain this? Is he one of the founding fathers? I don't think they wrote the Constitution along with the amendments that will be absurd, or am I wrong ?
While it is likely your statement contains a bit of hyperbole and the intended scope of the second amendment is slightly broader than only what you mention- your overall sentiment is correct to the widely historically and legally accepted interpretation of intent from documents and context. The second amendment wasn’t intended to enshrine “gun culture” so much as to provide a legal basis for the possession of weapons to ensure personal and national safety against not only humans- but in a time where wildlife provided both food and more pressing potential danger for many Americans. There are NO constitutional rights which do not contain a measure of responsibility and few if any that do not have any sort of constraints or restrictions. The often popular idea that constitutional rights are absolute and protect any and all behavior a person might choose to engage in is patently false.
If we need any sort of evidence to this fact we can see it in several constitutional sources. Not only is the constitution a “living document” intended to be updated as the times dictate, it is also a document which contains two spectate mechanisms that restrict freedom- the first is that on a case by case basis- certain constitutional rights apply to ALL people of the world and are labeled as such with verbiage such as “humans” or “men” to apply to ALL persons. Other constitutional rights specify those rights as extending only to US citizens via the constitution. US citizenship itself holds legal and other requirements and responsibilities and those refusing to or failing to uphold those responsibilities can be denied those rights.
That leads us to the second case of restriction- the constitution very clearly allows for rights to be suspended or revoked from persons breaking the law. As an obvious example- incarceration removes basic freedoms the constitution guarantees and…
.. also removes or restricts other rights such as those concerning property, search and seizure, freedom of speech, the rights to bear arms, etc. by the nature of incarceration it is prudent or customary in our society then and now to remove or restrict such rights by the nature of the act. The constitution isn’t an entitlement- it is a legal foundation for a functional democracy- the key word being functional. The “founding fathers” weren’t by and large seeking to create an anarchy or hippie commune where “anything goes.” Implicit and explicit evidence suggests the general bent of the document is to allow a fundamental level of freedom under assumption that “common sense” and other factors would guide exercise of freedom and where that failed, the law and society would impose the minimum practical restrictions to maintain that stable and functional democracy the document exists to support.
The German government disarmed people to keep the Nazis down, the Nazis came to power and ensured only they were armed.
The Red Russians seized weapons after the people's revolution, not even a generation later they orchestrated famines and kept the victims from fleeing.
And even now, we teeter precariously close to fascism or anarchy depending on the day and state.
.
Gotta nip these revolutionaries in the bud to keep em in place
That leads us to the second case of restriction- the constitution very clearly allows for rights to be suspended or revoked from persons breaking the law. As an obvious example- incarceration removes basic freedoms the constitution guarantees and…