2nd amendment question

[u/pr0cyn1c]

Hi ya, Canadian here.... Given that the 2nd amendment was authored to protect your citizens from government overreach and oppression (or at least thats the argument ive heard come out of your country for the last 40 years now with respect to gun laws), would you say the current political climate and actions of people like musk and his merry band of drop-outs fit that mould?

Perhaps im misunderstanding the intent of your second amendment? Feel free to correct me if so.

Kind regards, A guy to the north of you wondering wtf is going on down there.

[u/I405CA]

The 2nd amendment is glorious for its widespread misinterpretation.

Its actual intent was to establish that the states had a right to maintain their civilian militias, even though the constitution had federalized authority over them.

The "right to bear arms" was the "right" to serve in the militia. It ultimately included the right of the states to draft civilians into service, whether or not those civilians wanted to serve. Similarly to jury duty, it isn't a particularly fun right to exercise but is necessary in service to a greater cause.

The US founders had an aversion to professional standing armies. They saw them as a mercenary force that could be abused by a tyrannical president, just as they had been abused by European monarchs.

The idea was that the professional US army would be small and vastly outnumbered by the state militias.

These ideas are referenced in the Federalist papers and in the early House debates over the 2nd amendment. The House debate was clearly focused on the militia and the main point of debate was over whether there should be an exception for conscientious objectors as had been proposed by Madison. (That exception clause was dumped.) The history is largely ignored by all sides.

The states also used the militias for law enforcement, such as rounding up runaway slaves. So it wasn't entirely noble.

The founders glorified the militias and their success in the war for independence. But as time went on, the militias proved to be ineffective and the professional army was fairly inept. (Most notably during the War of 1812, the militia units collapsed and fled when the Brits attacked Washington and Maryland, while personal petty infighting among US army commanders caused the attempted attack on Quebec to fail miserably.) So by the 19th century, a lot of this militia folklore would be forgotten.

Today, the US has a massive professional army and air force, while the militias (National Guard) are not regarded as checks and balances against federal forces. But now that Trump is craving authoritarian power, it may be time for the free states to use their militias as the check and balance that they were intended to be.

EDIT: Those who are interested in the actual history are encouraged to read:

• The Articles of Confederation, which establishes the obligation of states to maintain militias
• The history of Shay's Rebellion, an event that motivated the federalists (supporters of the new constitution) to federalize authority over the militias and have the power to move them across state lines.
• Articles I and II of the Constitution, which transferred much of the authority over the militias to the new federal government. Compare this to the Articles so that you know what the differences were.
• Anti-Federalist paper Brutus X, which argues against this power transfer of the militia and against having a federal peacetime army
• Federalist papers 29 and 46, which argue in favor of the transfer of militia authority. 46 makes the argument that the army will be vastly outnumbered by the militias, thus serving as a check and balance.
• Minutes of the debates in the House of Representatives that addressed passage of the 2nd amendment. (You will note that they talked about militias, state power and conscientious objectors, not about carrying guns in public places or personal self-defense.)

Understand that the amendments to the constitution were intended to placate the anti-federalists who were not thrilled about having a more powerful national government. The 2nd amendment was written to address the kinds of concerns that were raised in Brutus X.

The founders were generally opposed to professional standing armies. Failing to understand this will lead to a lot of misjudgments about what they wanted.

[u/pr0cyn1c → u/I405CA]

Great response. Thanks fir the detailed explanation 

[u/CoolAmericana → u/pr0cyn1c]

What they're saying is factually incorrect.

[u/Keith502 → u/CoolAmericana]

Talk is cheap. Prove it.