I'll just drop this here. Do with it as you like.

[AverageOldGuy]

The Second Amendment is interpreted by the NRA as a safeguard granting the unlimited ownership of firearms by the citizenry thereby ensuring that if government becomes abusive, destructive, or tyrannical, citizens have the firepower to defend their liberty.

[displacedvermoter]

1. They (NRA) get much more worked up about

the imagined tyrannical or abusive conduct of Democratic candidates (especially when they are Black or women) than the actual product from white neo fascists. Can't figure that out.

[mopinko]

3. cuz it was always bullshit. a good cover story to tell the masses.

the truth is they’re just greedy assholes funded by russia.

[displacedvermoter]

5. Yup...

[biophile]

2. I have always agreed with that

I don’t have a gun though. Guess I better get one 😏

[Wednesdays]

4. "...citizens have the firepower to defend their liberty"

[Jack Valentino]

10. Ironically a 'trans-friendly' gunman made a better choice of firearm,

since he actually succeeded at eliminating his 'target'.....

[amerikat]

6. A well regulated militia...

They always seem to ignore that part.

[Bayard]

7. Indeed

It was meant to apply to defense against a foreign nation invasion, not a free for all.

[rubbersole]

8. And Washington couldn't afford a standing army.

The 2nd Amendment never said every Rickybobby could have a gun. Even a muzzle loader single shot. But I digress...

[Bayard]

13. Trying to apply regimental requirements from two centuries ago,

To modern militia/arms just doesn't work. The men who wrote the Constitution would be astonished and horrified by our current situation.

[Jack Valentino]

9. I suppose that Thomas Crooks agreed with that principle....

I only wish that he had better aim, or had chosen a better weapon for the job.....

[TalenaGor]

11. only if its democrats

[BidenRocks]

12. Two shooting ranges today.

I couldn't get a parking spot at either. One indoor, one outdoor.
Maybe mid week.

[MineralMan]

14. How do you interpret it? That's really the question, I think.

I'd have that question for anyone.

[Martin Eden]

15. Good luck using your 2A joysticks to defeat the US military

If it ever came to an actual war, who are the heavily armed organized groups that would have any chance (however remote) in actually siezing power?

My bet is on the far right "militia" types like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and other hate groups.

Is that what America's Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

Speaking of which, words have meaning. A well regulated militia means REGULATED. During the late 1700's, the lands west of the eastern seaboard were very much a frontier. What little standing army there was after the Revolutionary War was far away. Settlers had to form militias to defend against hostile natives, who often worked with the French who were still vying for land and resources. The British invaded again in 1812. There was a legitimate need for private ownership of firearms, not to battle our own government but to survive life on the frontier.

The 2nd Amendment as written has been an anachronism for more than a century. Far too many people are being deprived of life and liberty because private ownership of firearms is insufficiently regulated. The daily carnage in our streets has become overshadowed by mass shootings in schools and other public places.

The notion that the proliferation of firearms in the United States is necessary (and could actually succeed) in doing battle with a modern military and overthrowing our own government is a sick fantasy.