What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments

[jimmy the one]

41. more truth about the militia intent of 2ndA

More quotes & info from early 19th American writers, regarding the true meaning of the 2nd amendment:

1) Benjamin Oliver, Right of an American Citizen, 1832 (+emph):
"The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such [militia-related] purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."

Oliver was not alone in his views.. The notion that there was a general consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment that supports an individual right with no connection to the militia is simply gun rights propaganda passing as scholarship.' Saul Cornell

2) No right to keep & bear arms in the Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution, adopted 1777, ratified 1781:
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
search 'arms': https://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article3

3) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote about the same time: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."
https://selfeducatedamerican.com/2013/01/15/the-palladium-of-the-liberties-of-the-republic-justice-joseph-story/

Quite clear that Justice Story felt the 2ndA right to keep & bear arms & be 'duly armed' thereby, was impracticable without 'some organization' which of course was the militia. Not duly armed by an individual right, but duly armed within an organization.
Inexplicably, the gun lobby has twisted story's words & use this very passage to contend he was supporting an individual rkba.
Story also spoke of the dichotomy which had arisen early 1800's between militia supporters versus militia scofflaws who did not wish to be bothered with the militia system - to be rid of all regulations - who felt they had an rkba without militia involvement. This is tragically the opinion which has taken over in our 20th & 21st centuries, thanks to a far right wing gun lobby.