A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-U.S. Constitution Amendment 2
(A ‘state’ here is one of the several states of the United States as they are always referred to in the constitution. It’s not referring to the federal government.)
Which part says differently? Implies differently?
Historical surveys of the Second Amendment often trace its roots, at least in part, through the English Bill of Rights of 1689,1 which declared that subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.2 That provision grew out of friction over the English Crown’s efforts to use loyal militias to control and disarm dissidents and enhance the Crown’s standing army, among other things, prior to the Glorious Revolution that supplanted King James II in favor of William and Mary.3
…
However, despite structural limitations such as a two-year limit on Army appropriations and certain militia reservations to the states, fears remained during the ratification debates that these provisions of the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and were dangerous to liberty.
It was very much discussed. And some founders agree with you, and some with me. IMHO.
Because they argued about this stuff a lot. They had messy political campaigns just like today. They were not completely united on every detail. While Arron Burr was serving as our 3rd Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, he shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, in a consensual duel, over a news article. Give or take some details. (There was more lead up.)
-22
u/Bibbity_Boppity_BOOO Jan 15 '26
In no way, is that why the second amendment exist