• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It’s why professional soldiers were called “Regulars.” They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.

    In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.

    Somebody who doesn’t have a gun and has never used one isn’t going to be effective in civil defense.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yet there is little to no training before people are allowed to own guns. Seems to me like it doesn’t follow either the modern definition or the supposed definition of old.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why can’t you people just admit you don’t like guns so you’re trying to desperately to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it has literally always meant?

        You’re just like republicans with how disingenuous you are in your rhetoric.

        And you know it.

        • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          EXACTLY! Well Regulated meant TRAINED IN ARMS back in the day which means we should NOT train ANYONE today! And ALSO, ARMS means the EXACT weapons we have today and has NOTHING to do with the Arms they had back in the day!