• KraeuterRoy@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    If only their constitution had specific clauses that allowed them to take up arms against despots trying to upend democracy…

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, it doesn’t though. The second amendment says nothing like that. It says militias can have weapons to defend the state from enemies. It does not say citizens can fight tyrants controlling the state, despite what a lot of media would lead you to believe.

      It’s really short. Read it, and read it critically. Don’t try to read what you’ve already been told.

      Some of our founders wrote and spoke about fighting tyrants, but there’s not like a constitutional protection for it or anything like that.

      • Dragomus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        I also suspect the meaning of a regulated militia never was meant to be just a citizen…

        But wishful reading/thinking changes a lot, there are other documents that suffer from it.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Yeah, absolutely. It specifically says “a well regulated militia.” It meant militias could keep armories of weapons for their members to use. It didn’t mean every random person would have one at their house. If they meant citizens being armed they would have written that.