Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Aristus

(72,438 posts)
4. Yeah, no.
Fri Sep 19, 2025, 11:38 AM
Sep 2025

The Second Amendment was intended to provide for the national defense with local and state militias, made up of citizen soldiers. The Founding Fathers, having just defeated an imperial power with a standing army, did not want a standing army of their own, as it might lead to military insurrection. It was hoped that periodically-trained militiamen would be enough to defend the brand-new nation. This was back when military firearms were one-shot muskets and rifles. No one ever anticipated that rapid-fire weapons would one day be available to anyone, whether or not one was in a 'well-regulated' militia.

The NRA and their demented, gun-obsessed demi-human followers have perverted the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to justify having more guns per person than anyone with fewer than three arms should realistically need. You notice, none of those 300lb, bearded, brain-dead gunfucks is showing up to protest real, actual government tyranny.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Funny how the 2nd Amendme...»Reply #4