• sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.

    • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for finding which paper it was… I have a copy but didn’t feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️

      And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn’t by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It’s pretty clear if you’ve read anything from 1600 onward.

      Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - “twenty and four years” is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the “English language” such as it was, was considered beneath “proper” Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.

      It’s pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun

      I’d argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.

    • transigence@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.