32
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by breadsmasher@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

edit- follow up question

“a well regulated militia”. since the amendment was passed, and since the US has a military, has there even been a militia? would you trust your random neighbours loading up and marching against something? or would you expect law enforcement to crush it?

seems like the amendment has become “the locals can have guns and murder each other”. Nothing to with a “militia”; or defending your country.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Dookieman12@piefed.social 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

It's right there in the text. It's worth pointing out, the second amendment is unique in the fact that it's the only law in the entire US Constitution where the justification is provided directly in the text. The reasoning and justification for the second amendment were considered that important to the people who wrote it.

It's also worth pointing out, in the parlance of the time, "well regulated" simply meant "working correctly". A "well regulated" clock, for example, is one that keeps accurate time.

The founding fathers warned against standing armies because they're abused by tyrants. They envisioned, in the event the US was invaded, the response would consist of locals, armed with whatever they could procure, organizing to repel the invading force. This was in the days when private citizens owned muskets, gatling guns, cannons, and warships.

People were also expected to make and practice these invasion response plans, like fire drills, but this was never codified because they never thought they would need to explain that to people; it was simply understood to be a requirement that came with the responsibility.

This made sense in a lot of ways. People who know each other will readily cooperate. Locals will be familiar with the local geography, which was a big advantage in the days before accurate maps or quick communication.

Since then, things have changed. A lot. But the amendment has remained. I still think it's important to enshrine the people's right to self-preservation and self-defense. But I also don't feel like typing a 10K word essay with my thumbs today.

[-] cattywampas@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Excellent comment, but gatling guns weren't invented until the 1860s.

Edit: I also want to point out that I very much agree with this part:

I still think it's important to enshrine the people's right to self-preservation and self-defense.

My thoughts on 2A have evolved a lot over the years, but especially in recent years (hmm I wonder why) I've gotten more used to the notion that the "take all the guns away" flavor of anti-2A is actually a pretty privileged take. It's really easy for me as a straight white male in a good neighborhood to say that no one needs guns, but I'm not very oppressed in the grand scheme of things and I can imagine that a lot of people out there want the right to defend themselves right about now.

[-] Dookieman12@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

gatling guns weren’t invented until the 1860s

And the first piece of gun control legislation was passed in 1934

[-] cattywampas@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Tommy guns were invented in 1918 and used widely in organized crime in the 20s. I bet that had a lot to do with it.

[-] valar@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

Wiki says

The ostensible impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, including the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929, and the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

abused by tyrants

hmmmmm

[-] Memnochian@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, so why has no one shot the tyrant trump? Or are all the school shootings worthless since noone actually uses the 2nd amendment to remove tyrants?

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Cut the crap. Gun owners today are not part of any militia. Never have been nor will be. FFS, gangs are the closest there is. And I thought the general consensus was it's a really bad thing that they're armed to the teeth.

[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks ago

You're correct that it has nothing to do with militia anymore.

It's because the Supreme Court ruled that it has nothing to do with militia and everything to do with letting everybody have whatever guns they want.

That's a relatively modern viewpoint. It's the result of huge amounts of money being spent to campaign in favor of letting anybody have all the guns they want.

As a result, the United States has more gun violence and more gun murders than pretty much any other developed country. It's not even close.

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What are the statistics for people successfully using a gun to actually defend themselves? I never see them mentioned. I'm genuinely curious, because from where I'm sitting, they seem to cause more problems than they ever solve.

[-] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago

Incredibly small compared to the amount of gun violence. Where you are sitting has a pretty accurate view

[-] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well... 30,000, 60,000 or 2 million a year depending on source..... So... clearly it's easy to measure and everyone agrees. Vs 15k-ish homicides. I won't include a million sources but here's one for the low end and one for the homicide number. Also, an interesting "non-partisan" article with strong sources that discusses the issue.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11540955/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Interesting stuff. Thanks. It seems the biggest problem is that it isn't something being tracked with any kind of consistency or accuracy, which is what I suspected. I'm not sure it's something that's even possible to accurately track. Just showing someone you have a gun that deters them from committing a crime isn't likely to be reported, for example.

The agreement seems to be that it's still a lot less that using a gun as the aggressor, though. The stats on suicide by guns is pretty horrifying, too.

All up, I prefer living in a country with strong gun regulations and very few guns.

[-] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I imagine defining what counts as "self defense" is difficult. A lot of the gun violence is justified as "self defence" (whether that is accurate is a different story), whether it's trying protecting family/friends, your property, or yourself. It's a lot easier to come up with a statistic of how many people got shot by a gun.

And you are correct that more guns is correlated with more gun-related violence, there are plenty of studies on this for many different parts of the world. When I was in middle school, we learned about this in geography class, with data points in Australia, the US, China, and various countries in Europe, and there was a very strong relationship between number of guns and the cases of gun violence!

[-] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is the correct answer.

Cf. D.C. v. Heller (2008)

[-] Nemo@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 weeks ago

The country was founded on armed rebellion, and the framers recognized it might be necessary again in the future, so they enshrined the right to an armed populace almost immediately.

[-] Dookieman12@piefed.social 7 points 2 weeks ago

There was also the very real possibility the Native Americans, the French, the Spanish, the Portugese, or some combination thereof would invade.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Dookieman12@piefed.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

I don't recall claiming it did

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Its called a follow up question

[-] Dookieman12@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's a rhetorical question being asked in bad faith. Stop playing games and state your point, if you have one.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ok ill restate my question.

whats the point of the 2nd amendment

is there a risk of invasion from france etc?

[-] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Have you tried stating your opinion one way or the other, since your questions clearly indicate you have some thoughts of your own on the matter, instead of sealioning people with "just asking questions"?

[-] discocactus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's a pretext for a militarized police force and shoot first ask questions maybe later or not idk policy.

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I was told it was in case of a tyrannical government

[-] Fluke@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
32 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49542 readers
370 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS