897
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I mean it's really how far you want to take samantics.

I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that's part of the whole debate about the second.

What does it mean to you?

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,

Because they didn't have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.

That's also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it's supposed to mean you can't make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.

[-] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The whole idea was NOT to have a unified military. But to have volunteer militias.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, and that was proven to be ludicrous once Connecticut and Pennsylvania started shooting at each other over who's stuff was who's

this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
897 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5787 readers
2308 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS