mnemonicmonkeys

@mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

mnemonicmonkeys,

No, the “well-regulated militia” actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.

What’s important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they’d need to raise an army quickly.

mnemonicmonkeys,

The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.

And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of “militia” in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a “well-regulated” meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.

Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #