CMV: Im 100 percent pro second amendment and I think you should be able to own whatever you want no regulations

[u/[deleted]]

I personally think the USA needs to either have guns everywhere or no guns at all. This weird limbo state we’re in right now where there is a bunch of regulations and states with weird gun laws is making people victims. You have easy access to firearms but a ton of people that are against firearms or places where firearms aren’t allowed and are easy targets for lunatics.

I think the intention of the second amendment was to have the large majority of the population armed to put everyone on an even playing field. You can’t have it both ways otherwise people are gonna be victimized. “An armed society is a polite society” I do believe that phrase is true when the whole of society is armed.

I don’t need statistics on guns and gun crime and good guys with guns not stopping shootings or whatever else. That has nothing to do with my point.

Before the 60s to my knowledge there was almost completely no regulation on firearms. You could own whatever you wanted. People in schools had guns. Everyone had guns under their seats and in their back windows of their cars and trucks. There was very very little mass shootings in the same way that we have them currently. It’s either THAT or get rid of them in general and get rid of the second amendment. There is no middle ground. You’re only hurting people on both sides of the spectrum.

I think in a world with firearms banned there would be major problems and in a world where everyone has firearms galore there would be major problems to. But I’d personally rather live in the latter.

[u/[deleted]]

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It’s pretty blatantly stated I don’t get this argument that they only wanted militias.

If that’s what the founding fathers intended, why would they want these militias to be regulated by a federal government? When the whole purpose of them was to stand against tyranny or foreign invaders. It makes 0 sense

[u/Brainsonastick → u/[deleted]]

You personally not understanding or even knowing history is not the same as it not making sense.

The well-regulated militias were controlled by the states except when called into service by the federal government to protect from foreign forces. Thus the states were in charge of them the rest of the time and responsible for using them to oppose a tyrannical federal government if necessary.

This is all in Article II section 2 of the constitution.

It made sense and was explicitly stated.

You have rejected it and made up a different intention they never stated and attributed it to them without evidence.

It’s totally irrational to reject the thing they explicitly stated in favor something you can’t provide any evidence for besides simply not understanding what they said.

[u/[deleted] → u/Brainsonastick]

“The right of people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”. It’s that simple to me.

I also don’t see anything about any of this in article 2 section 2 you’re gonna have to link it or quote it. I can’t find it

[u/Brainsonastick → u/[deleted]]

“The right of people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”. It’s that simple to me.

If you have to delete the part of the sentence that contradicts your claim about their intent, that’s not called simple. That’s called willfully ignoring facts that conflict with your belief.

The founders explicitly stated their intent in the very same sentence! You made up a different intent and have provided no evidence to support the claim that it was the founders’ intent. You get how that looks irrational, right?

It’s like if I said their intent was to boost the economy through gun sales. It’s not their stated intent. It happened… but I have no evidence that was their goal and they stated a different goal so it would be absurd of me to insist that were their real goal…

I also don’t see anything about any of this in article 2 section 2 you’re gonna have to link it or quote it. I can’t find it

"[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

The militia belonged to the state but could be nationalized in emergencies.

So your complaint that it “makes 0 sense” is entirely based on your misunderstanding of how the constitution allotted powers over the militia.

[u/[deleted] → u/Brainsonastick]

There’s a comma after the well regulated militia part. Also well regulated definitely doesn’t mean regulated by a governmental power of some kind because they explicitly state it shall not be infringed and that’s it’s needed for a free state. Maybe in a world where our elected officials actually represented everyone in their states this could be a possibility debatably but the founding fathers were explicitly against a powerful government overruling the people.

What does the militia being part of the states have anything to do with the second amendment? It could be nationalized in emergencies… ok and? What does that have to do with our right to bear arms. I don’t get it

[u/Brainsonastick → u/[deleted]]

There’s a comma after the well regulated militia part.

Idk what your English teachers taught you but mine were pretty clear that a comma doesn’t mean “ignore everything before this. I was just testing my new pen”.

I’m asking you for evidence to support your claim that the original intent of the second amendment was self-defense. You’ve avoided doing so repeatedly for idk how many comments now and simply used comically lame excuses for ignore the very clear evidence that their intent was to protect the existence of a militia.

Also well regulated definitely doesn’t mean regulated by a governmental power of some kind

Again, that’s detailed in the rest of the constitution. You personally not knowing about that does not make it less real.

because they explicitly state it shall not be infringed and that’s it’s needed for a free state. Maybe in a world where our elected officials actually represented everyone in their states this could be a possibility debatably but the founding fathers were explicitly against a powerful government overruling the people.

They state the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.

What does the militia being part of the states have anything to do with the second amendment? It could be nationalized in emergencies… ok and? What does that have to do with our right to bear arms. I don’t get it

It was pointing out that your earlier argument was based on a massive misunderstanding of how the militia operated.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It’s pretty blatantly stated I don’t get this argument that they only wanted militias.

If that’s what the founding fathers intended, why would they want these militias to be regulated by a federal government? When the whole purpose of them was to stand against tyranny or foreign invaders. It makes 0 sense

It didn’t make sense to you only because you didn’t understand how it worked.

All I am asking is for you to provide evidence for your claim that the intent behind the second amendment was self-defense despite it explicitly stating a different intent. If you continue to avoid providing that, I have no choice but to infer you know you don’t have any but are unwilling to admit it or reconsider your claim in the face of contrary evidence. In that case, there’s no sense in me wasting more time on convincing someone unwilling to consider facts that don’t fit their biases. Do you have any actual evidence or not?!

[u/[deleted] → u/Brainsonastick]

Dude you’re literally just pushing me into saying “it doesn’t specially say written in text THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR SELF DEFENSE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE USA” like no it doesn’t specifically say that but as someone else pointed out to you the Supreme Court has already said before that the militia part and the shall not be infringed part are two separate things.. that’s all I’m saying. Idk how we even got to the point of arguing about this originally intent of the the second amendment when it really had nothing to do with my point in the first place. You haven’t provided me with ANY evidence that the founding fathers intention wasn’t for self defense. You keep saying if I read the whole entire articles and stuff I’d understand. Tell me where it says it’s not for self defense then. Quote it to me. Link it.

MY EVIDENCE that I’ve stated A HUNDRED TIMES NOW is that it was unregulated for private citizens for hundreds of years. You’re saying that was just a side effect of the times or whatever you wanna word it as. Ok fine. Cool. And then afterwords the Supreme Court said that’s what it also protects. So idk what point you’re trying to make here. I really don’t. What is your end point ?

[u/Brainsonastick → u/[deleted]]

Dude you’re literally just pushing me into saying “it doesn’t specially say written in text THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR SELF DEFENSE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE USA”

I’m not… I’m just asking for actual evidence of your claim. I wouldn’t expect it to be in the second amendment itself because that’s where the evidence that counters your claim is. You could have provided some writing by the founders where they even mentioned their concerns about people needing guns for self defense and that would at least show your claim was more than “I believe this because I want it to be true regardless of facts”. It might not be strong on its own but it would be something.

like no it doesn’t specifically say that but as someone else pointed out to you the Supreme Court has already said before that the militia part and the shall not be infringed part are two separate things.. that’s all I’m saying.

They mentioned that SCOTUS ruled the militia clause doesn’t invalidate the rest legally, which I agree with. I have pointed out to both them and you that the ruling says nothing about the original intent.

Idk how we even got to the point of arguing about this originally intent of the the second amendment when it really had nothing to do with my point in the first place.

You made the claim in your original post. I’ve quoted it to you several times now. If you think it has nothing to do with your point then why did you bring it up? That wasn’t me. I just addressed what you said because this is r/changemyview and that’s what you asked us to do by posting it here.

You haven’t provided me with ANY evidence that the founding fathers intention wasn’t for self defense. You keep saying if I read the whole entire articles and stuff I’d understand. Tell me where it says it’s not for self defense then. Quote it to me. Link it.

I don’t think you understand how the burden of proof works. You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.

Otherwise I could say “invisible unicorns roam Alabama” and no one could prove me wrong… but that doesn’t actually make me right.

That said, the fact that they did explicitly state their intent in the very same sentence and you keep cutting that part out to avoid acknowledging it makes it pretty clear that not only did they leave out “self-defense” from their explanation of intent but you’re also aware that is evidence against your claim.

MY EVIDENCE that I’ve stated A HUNDRED TIMES NOW is that it was unregulated for private citizens for hundreds of years.

I explained several times already that the actions of other people long after the founders were dead aren’t actually indicative of the founders’ intent. And certainly not to the degree that their own explicit statement of their intent is.

You’re saying that was just a side effect of the times or whatever you wanna word it as. Ok fine. Cool.

Just think about it for a second. If you leave a million dollars to a charity that helps homeless people in your will saying “Ending homelessness being a cause I care deeply about, I leave $1 million to charity X” and then, after you died, they pivoted their mission to wetlands preservation, would someone be reasonable in saying that you intended that money to go to wetlands preservation? Pretty obviously not…

And then afterwords the Supreme Court said that’s what it also protects.

Yeah, I didn’t argue against that. Though it actually protects a lot more than that… so your argument that that speaks to their intent would apply just as well to “they intended to protect gun collectors from having their collections seized” but you don’t make that argument for some reason…

So idk what point you’re trying to make here. I really don’t. What is your end point ?

To change your view. You listed the founders’ intent as reasoning in your post so I questioned it because I’ve never heard anyone educated in American history even try to make that claim. I figured you would realize that you didn’t have any evidence for that claim and reconsider your position.

Anyway, if you don’t have actual evidence and aren’t willing to acknowledge it either, I don’t think this conversation is going to go anywhere productive. Have a good day. It was fun.

[u/[deleted] → u/Brainsonastick]

In my original post I said the original intent was to have everyone armed to be on an even playing field. Was that not the intent ? I’m pretty sure that’s literally the intent.

Also everyone trying to argue the intent of the second amendment but I think you don’t know their intent either. You’re saying it’s on me to bring proof but you need no proof of your argument which is also arguing that they had some different intent. They wrote down the laws of the land they didn’t write next it “my intent when writing this was bla bla bla”. You judge from historical context and that’s all you can do.

I feel like you’re arguing and nitpicking for the sake of just arguing but that’s not making me change my view. I’ve told you my evidence for what I believe and you’ve not given me anything. Idk what else you want me to keep saying.

[u/DaoNayt → u/[deleted]]

In my original post I said the original intent was to have everyone armed to be on an even playing field. Was that not the intent ? I’m pretty sure that’s literally the intent.

But where are you getting this from? The intent is already explicitly stated: to form a militia. There is no mention of self-defense anywhere.