• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I support legal safe gun ownership, usage, and training. I believe the second amendment doesn’t apply anymore though. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” This is not true anymore. It was written in a time where standing professional armies weren’t the norm by people who never expected the US to reach a state to have one.

    Gun ownership should be protected by the 9th amendment to an extent though, as abortion and all of our other traditionally held rights are.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very well could be true, which is part of why I don’t mind (and appreciate when done properly) gun ownership. That doesn’t change the fact that the wording of the second amendment is for something that isn’t true anymore. Again, your rights are (or should be at least) protected by the 9th, which is much more important but most people haven’t even heard of.

        The basis of the 2nd is just not true anymore. It’s like saying “physical currency, being necessary for the purchase of items, the right to possess coins shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t take into account the changes that may occur. We don’t need militias to protect the nation anymore, since we have a professional army, and we don’t need physical currency anymore, because most people don’t use it now anyway.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Kinda funny actually, since we’re starting to see a movement that looks to effectively ban physical currency by making it a headache.

          Same motivation: surveillance and control.