• bufalo1973@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I guess the question is more in the line of “wasn’t the 2nd amendment exactly for this precise situation?”

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      It reads:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Beau of the Fifth column said it best, the purpose was to put down civil insurrections (now there’s cops for that, supposedly), and to fight government employees: the foreign kind, in the send of an invasion where the people would support the military; and the domestic kind, if the government went tyrannical.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No, they would have said that if they meant that. I cannot overemphasize just how many Americans truly, actually believe that there are just bands of colored men with rifles walking around in the city streets.

        • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Einstein