• 4 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s absolutely the opposite of what it says.

    It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:

    . It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.‘’

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    By keeping the army, or ‘militia’ under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.

    Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.