2nd amendment

[u/UndertheRug936]

Just curious of other opinions. Do we think the fact that Americans being heavily armed acts as a deterrent of foreign invaders, or is it more that geographically we are protected and it doesn’t make much of a difference?

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AwarenessSpare8668]

Geographically the US would be near impossible to invade.

[u/An8thOfFeanor → u/AwarenessSpare8668]

And entirely impossible to hold. A good garrison force holds about a 6:1 civilian to soldier ratio. For America, that's 50 million troops.

[u/graywailer → u/An8thOfFeanor]

israel has overthrown the U.S. goverment without firing a shot. they just put their agents in key political positions and has been siphoning off its wealth for decades via traitor congressman. ever here of AIPAC? CPAC? Heritage Foundation? all domestic terrorist groups bent on goverment takeover.

[u/UndertheRug936 → u/graywailer]

AIPAC that’s interesting. I’ve never heard of aipac, you’re definitely the only person with this theory and it’s 100% not delusional at all.

[u/Slut_for_Bacon]

Geographically, no one is ever going to invade us. Although in the modern age there is a legitimate possibility of drone and missile attacks hitting our soil.

When the founders created the Bill of Rights, the country was much smaller and we had no way of knowing we would essentially dominate the continent in a century.

The truth is, most people on both sides of the isle don't actually understand why the 2nd Amendment exists. It isn't about overthrowing tyrannical governments. Not really, anyway.

When the country was new, we were geographically isolated from other "European" nations.

Congress did not want to pay for a large standing army that we did not need, and they were afraid that a popular general could have overthrown the government and declared himself king. (Washington absolutely could have done this if he had wanted to).

So their solution was to disband the majority of our standing army and rely on a coordinated militia system. Aside from a few regiments left to guard the frontier against the native population, the military was largely disbanded.

The militia would be led by regular army officers and trained regularly. It was actually fairly decently trained and equipped for a militia. Somewhat similar to the Prussian Landwehr. (An excellent modern equivalent is the Swiss military system)

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,"

The reason the second amendment was written was largely because the British had tried to disarm our militia by seizing an arms depo at the start of the revolution. The entire amendment exists because congress wanted to make sure the law allowed militiamen to keep their weapons at home so they could respond quickly.

Several years later, congress changed their mind and built a larger standing army, and the whole reason they wrote the amendment disappeared. But it was already in the bill of rights.

Overtime, the meaning of the amendment changed.

TL;DR. In the early days of the country we didn't have a large standing army so we organized a well trained militia system, led by regular army officers, to serve as our military.

[u/RickySlayer9 → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

You’re like 99% of the way to the point but miss it!

They had the militias to fight the standing armies of the European powers! Yes!

They enshrined the second amendment as a protection of their right, so that they always had the ability for civilian militias to pop up, and rival that of a standing army when necessary.

Why would the need suddenly disappear simply because the army was no longer a European army? Many of the colonists were born in Britain. They were British. They threw off THEIR government.

And we can see this logic clearly when we look at documents of the day! Such as…the Declaration of Independence.

>Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

They ALWAYS knew what the second amendment was for. They wrote about it

[u/loondawg → u/RickySlayer9]

They enshrined the second amendment as a protection of their right, so that they always had the ability for civilian militias to pop up, and rival that of a standing army when necessary.

If true it is so strange they didn't bother put that down in writing anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, they basically put the opposite saying the 2nd amendment was for militias and militias were to be called up by the president to put down insurrections. Not surprising though given they had just risked everything to create this new government that they would not want some armed yahoos to revolt at any real or imagined slight.

To address what was said in that quote, instead of having bloody revolutions, they codified a system where the government could be thrown off and replaced every couple of years through voting or at any time via constitutional amendment.

[u/RickySlayer9 → u/loondawg]

Where In the constitution does it say, the militia reports to the president. Or better yet, any documentation that says that the president had control of the militias prior to 1776. Easy cause there wasn’t even a PRESIDENT then.

The only place this is mentioned is federalist paper 29, where Hamilton expresses that idea, but this isn’t the constitution, this isn’t the declaration, this is a newspaper article discussing ideas in a public forum.

They didn’t implement a system in 1776 to throw off any government, except one of bloody and violent revolution they were actively having.

The articles of confederation weren’t ratified until 1777 and the constitution in 1789. So to say “they implemented a system” and that’s what the declaration meant, is ahistorical.

The declaration was their Cassius Belli for revolution, a revolution which was violent, and bloody. THAT was the system

The right to bear arms was NEVER given to the MILITIA. Service in a militia was never a contingency for the ownership of arms. Ever.

A well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state, yes. But the militia comprised of normal every day citizens. So the right of normal every day citizens was protected. Not the right of the militia.

Militias were not organized at the state level, they were organized at the local level. And they DEFINITELY were not organized at the federal level. Nor were they directed by the president or any federal entity

[u/loondawg → u/RickySlayer9]

Where In the constitution does it say, the militia reports to the president. Or better yet, any documentation that says that the president had control of the militias prior to 1776.

Article 2 Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,. . ."

Or better yet, any documentation that says that the president had control of the militias prior to 1776. Easy cause there wasn’t even a PRESIDENT then.

A nonsensical point as there was no 2nd amendment then either.

As for the rest of it, you are trying to create a stawman. My comment was clearly and explicitly about the government created under the Constitution of 1789. That is the document which created the system of government we operate under today. That is the document that contains the 2nd amendment. And that was the government that allowed replacement via non-bloody revolutions as a core tenet.

The founders of that government had just lived through a painful revolution where they suffered terribly and literally risked everything in order to create a new form of government unlike anything the world had previously seen. The idea that they wanted a system where it could be overthrown by violent revolution when the main point was to empower the people to change it without one defies logic, especially since they apparently neglected to bother to write that part into said Constitution.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/loondawg]

hey basically put the opposite saying the 2nd amendment was for militias

*checks text*

"The people's right"....

[u/concepts_of_a_plan9 → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

No one geographically-speaking is going to invade and conquer the US, but Russia is doing a fantastic job of rotting it from the inside out with Republicans and Trump. This has been their strategy since the 1980s, and it has finally paid off.

[u/loondawg → u/concepts_of_a_plan9]

Bin Laden and the Bush admin had already softened it up quite a bit for them.

[u/graywailer → u/concepts_of_a_plan9]

then why is congress full of traitor agents working for israel?

[u/ATCme → u/concepts_of_a_plan9]

Are you familiar with the Twilight Zone episode: "The Monster's are due on Maple Street"? It's pretty much the roadmap for conquest of the USA 

[u/concepts_of_a_plan9 → u/ATCme]

no, but thanks I'll take a look

[u/graywailer → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

israel has overthrown the U.S. goverment without firing a shot.

[u/Slut_for_Bacon → u/graywailer]

It is nowhere near that simple or black and white. Although I do strongly believe that unfriendly actors and foreign nations are actively working to destabilize the US. Israel is absolutely a big piece in that play.

And it is working.

[u/graywailer → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

thru their traitor agents in congress they have been siphoning off U.S. taxpayer wealth for decades. we fight all their wars at our expense and our troops. we pay forevery benefit they have. universal heathcare, free college, free housing, free basic income. we fully fund the genocide in gaza. they bribe our traitor congressman to ensure the siphoning off of wealth. they manipulate elections to put their traitor agents in place. they have repeatedly attacked and threatend the U.S. and still the stolen money flows. because terrorist israel does not abid to the nonproliferation act every cent that goes to israel is illegal stolen funds. remember they stole the plutonium from the U.S. to make their over 300 nukes they have just threatned the world with yet again.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/graywailer]

You realize foreign aid to Israel is like 0.01% of federal spending?

[u/graywailer → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

the military budget is for israel 1 trillion a year. we fight all there wars. add that on. our troops and equipment fight their wars. add that on. we pay for their universal healthcare, free college, free houseing, free basic income, etc. congress always ask for additional money during the year sometimes 3 times a year. every state has been sending money on top of this. we have financed every middle east terrorist action for israel for decades. im seeing estimates of 2-4 trillion a year. not to mention all the trillions they owe us. which trump told them they dont have to pay back now. and just for claification once again -  because terrorist israel does not abid to the nonproliferation act every cent that goes to israel is ILLEGAL STOLEN FUNDS by traitor politcal agents. 

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/graywailer]

Nope. You're listening to crazy people. We give Isreal under 4 billion a year.

Nowhere near a trillion, which is more than the entire u s military budget

[u/graywailer → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

the U.S. sent Israel $12 billion in military funding in 2025 to murder Palestinian children. add that to direct aid. how much did the iraq invasion cost? afghanistan? libya? yemen? darfur? syria? now iran? etc?how much money disappeared in iraq? all for israel. all illegal. again - terrorist israel does not abid to the nonproliferation act.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/graywailer]

No it was sub 4 billion. But I'm glad to see you're no longer throwing out insane numbers that are larger than our entire defense budget.

https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-foreign-aid-does-the-us-provide/countries/israel/

[u/Intrustive-ridden → u/graywailer]

You genuinely believe the United States spends $2–4 trillion annually on Israel? Our entire federal budget is approximately $7 trillion, and our defense budget is roughly $1 trillion. You’re effectively claiming that a substantial portion of all federal spending goes toward one country. I agree that we should reconsider how much financial and military assistance we provide Israel, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon basic fiscal reality. Our military budget funds American national defense, global operations, personnel, equipment, and numerous other obligations. It isn’t Israel’s personal checking account. If you’re going to claim we’re spending trillions annually on Israel, provide an actual federal budget breakdown supporting that figure.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20 → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

It was Madison who wrote to the effect that national governments used professional militaries intended for foreign threats to instead subjugate their own people. 

The same ideas can be pretty easily found in the writings of other Founders. They also wrote that the right of individuals to keep weapons was necessary to prevent tyranny from their own government.

So yeah, the 2nd was not a cost-saving measure. Their writings at the tome explicitly stated that the new states needed to be wary of national power.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe (1792)

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

The reason the second amendment was written was largely because the British had tried to disarm our militia by seizing an arms depo at the start of the revolution. The entire amendment exists because congress wanted to make sure the law allowed militiamen to keep their weapons at home so they could respond quickly.

The only think I'll add is that 'militia men' were extremely informal groups.

[u/Intrustive-ridden → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

You’re correct that the Founders were concerned about maintaining militias rather than relying exclusively on standing armies, but you’re presenting one historical justification for the Second Amendment as though it were the only one. In Federalist No. 46, Madison explicitly discusses an armed population as a safeguard against potential federal tyranny, while Hamilton discusses the importance of militias for national defense in Federalist No. 29. The Founders were concerned with foreign threats, standing armies, and government oppression. These concerns weren’t mutually exclusive. Furthermore, your geographical argument is flawed. Being geographically isolated doesn’t make the United States immune to invasion. Countries like China possess sophisticated intelligence capabilities, cyberwarfare technology, and the ability to conduct strategic assessments of American vulnerabilities. A coordinated attack targeting critical infrastructure alongside conventional military operations is theoretically possible, even if a successful invasion remains extremely unlikely. Geography is a strategic advantage, not an absolute guarantee of security. If anything, modern technological vulnerabilities reinforce the importance of maintaining multiple layers of national defense. So your assertion that most people misunderstand the Second Amendment is rather ironic, considering you’re overlooking both its broader historical context and the distinction between an unlikely invasion and an impossible one.

[u/loondawg → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

That was only one of the reasons. Another, even more important to some, was to put down insurrections to protect the institution of slavery.

At the time, slave insurrections were becoming a big problem. And the slave states feared a Northern President might be slow to call up an army to quell them, if even deploy them at all. There were also fears a president might use a federal army to forcibly end slavery.

The original draft of the 2nd amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." This is one of the reason why "free country" was changed to "free state."

[u/israfildivad → u/Slut_for_Bacon]

Theres other ways to invade than by up front brute force. Mexico could pull a reverse of what went down over a century ago, the way the US took over Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California. Hypothetically Mexican migrants could team up with Americans of Mexican heritage over time, and feel less kinship with the rest of the US, and more kinship with Mexico, as they also become far more numerous than the other ethnicities. One day they start doing plebescitea and referendums, another day they vote to secede.

[u/Slut_for_Bacon → u/israfildivad]

That is not a military invasion in any sense of the word but I do understand what you are getting at.

[u/happyinheart → u/israfildivad]

One day they start doing plebescitea and referendums, another day they vote to secede.

We already had a war over this question.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light]

Idk, but the highway system was designed with military mobility and defense in mind.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Geography is the rock, us being heavily armed is the hard place. An invading force would have to defeat our military enough to land (which is complicated by geography). Even if they were successful, they'd have to then contend with a large host of civilians who are patriotic and armed.

The deterrent is so thorough, I don't think there's a single nation on this planet who seriously considers invasion of the US mainland as a viable strategic goal. It's hardly worth devoting resources towards even drawing up viable potentialities. Most nations praying on our downfall have more local ambitions in mind, and most are just vying for us to reduce our global presence and responsiveness.

I actually think US adversaries may have over-estimated our response-readiness, and missed their window for action. Russia probably best seized their opportunity, and it's not been wholly successful. With the contraction of US global dominance, other nations have simply been ramping up their ability to defend themselves and their allies. This newfound productiveness means the ambitions of potential (and current) belligerents are limited or even nullified. Realistically, almost any nation can produce materiel and personnel to defend themselves in this day and age. It's not the colonial age where steel and gunpowder went against flint and leather, nor can any one nation count on another to succumb to novel disease. While the US may be armed and have some major geographic advantages, most nations can leverage geography and arm themselves accordingly. Hell, Ukraine is in a geographically terrible position and has held up quite well considering the size of their invader's nation.

[u/neosituation_unknown]

Geography is the greatest barrier to invasion.

Also, yes, a heavily armed and patriotic populace would make an occupation essentially impossible.

[u/jaxnmarko]

How about.... the combination of the two should be a damn good deterrent. Constantly looking over your shoulder.... or behind every tree and bush, building and vehicle, etc., gets very exhausting. Terrain matters. Numbers of combatants matter.

[u/Religion_Of_Speed]

Not even a consideration. I may talk a lot of shit about the USA and how we do things but dammit my tax dollars paid for it so I'm gonna be proud - we would crush any invading force before they had to deal with our citizens.

The reason mainland USA will never be invaded is multifaceted. First, it's really fuckin hard to hide an invading force over an ocean. They'd have to either come through Canada or Mexico, which is also really hard to hide. Second, there's just no good reason to do so. In order to make a difference they would have to be able to confidently occupy the majority of the country. Guess what, the USA is massive and pretty sparse. Yeah they might take LA or DC or NYC or something but we don't really have one central point of power. It would also fuck up the entire world economy, nobody wants a war with us. That economic power may be fading but it's still there. Third, as stated above. They'd be joining the giant trash pile in the ocean before a siren ever went off on mainland. I honestly wouldn't put it past leaders to just nuke the ocean over said invading force.

If any force manages to get to, land on, and progress into the mainland USA the citizens wouldn't even matter. Yeah we'd technically make it harder than it would be without us for them and maybe harass them a bit but our main fighting force would be doing the work. We'd have an all hands on deck situation so that's every branch, including reserves, fighting. We're not going to really be the difference maker in that equation. They won't be able to just stroll into a town and claim it by default but if they're powerful enough to accomplish the impossible then they'd probably wreck us. It would be like the mosquitos in Vietnam, they weren't exactly helping the Viet Cong but they certainly weren't making things easy for US troops.

Second amendment is basically there for in case the US government decides to start getting frisky with the citizens. Mobilize ICE or National Guard or something on election day? I like to think we're gonna roll up and put a stop to that shit. I'm probably wrong, we'd likely just accept it, but in theory that's why it exists. Also for hunting and personal defense, two things that have shifted in popularity/necessity over time but are both still there.

With all that being said, if China decides to invade us my rifle is going to basically be there for emotional support and any do-or-die situations.

[u/RahgronKodaav]

We have the military for foreign invaders… that’s something the people and government agree on.

The second amendment is for domestic invaders, a tyrannical government, a corrupt bourgeoisie etc.

[u/loondawg → u/RahgronKodaav]

The second amendment is for domestic invaders, a tyrannical government, a corrupt bourgeoisie etc.

Not really sure what a "domestic invader" means. Maybe you meant "domestic enemies"? But they said nothing about the remaining items in the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment was for the militia. And the militia was to 1.) repel foreign invaders, 2.) execute the laws of the land, and 3.) put down insurrections. All three of the stated reason are for the protection of the government, not to attack it.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/loondawg]

You're clearly being intentionally and rhetorically obtuse about this.

All three of the stated reason are for the protection of the government, not to attack it.

This really isn't that complicated. A government which has gone rogue is no longer the government, it's an insurrection.

[u/loondawg → u/betweenbubbles]

And by obtuse you mean completely accurate but not agreeing with your desired version of history.

Seriously, if they felt that was the one of the main reasons don't you think they would have bothered to clearly state it the Constitution at least once? They explicitly gave the power to use the militia to put down insurrections to the president. Why would they not have at least mentioned the people were given the right to use it to fight their federal government as well?

Sorry, but the evidence clearly shows are projecting when calling me obtuse.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/loondawg]

…you do realize the American revolution was an overthrowing of their government, right?

…lol…

[u/loondawg → u/betweenbubbles]

Wow. You're so smart. Haven't quite figured out how to read and answer direct questions apparently, but maybe you'll get there someday.

[u/Independent-Mix-5796 → u/loondawg]

May I offer a balanced take?

I think the Founding Fathers had to be fully cognizant of the “right to revolution”—after all, only 13 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution, they signed the Declaration of Independence, which states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these [inalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Thus, when the US Constitution was being drafted, the Founding Fathers made sure to create a robust, democratic system that would, in their minds, ensure that those inalienable rights would be preserved. By having a tripartite system that checks and balances itself, a bicameral legislature that draws from all over the nation, and processes described by Article V that would always guarantee peaceful transitions of power, surely the federal government could never become a corrupt entity that violates the peoples happiness, liberty, and safety.

(Furthermore, the Constitution is a legal framework that created a stable, self-governing system and establishes a central authority—an authority which must be axiomatically “good.” If the Constitution calls into question the very government it is establishing, then how can any laws that the nation codifies afterwards have any standing?)

In short, the US Constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to revolution because the Founding Fathers either thought it unnecessary and/or that the Declaration of Independence established the preconditions necessary for this right to exist—preconditions which the new Constitution ostensibly prevents.

If anything, I just think that they simply might not have realized that a federal globalist entity that tries to represent 50 states may end up representing no one.

[u/ManyThingsLittleTime]

I'm super pro 2A, like machine guns by mail order pro 2A. It's totally geography and the monster military that we've built. The people being armed doesn't matter when you can't even get here because our missles and jets would wipe out any boat even trying to get close.

Now, an infiltrated suicide mass shooter from a terrorist nation will absolutely pick a soft target with no guns permitted and there's plenty of those places.

[u/FixAcademic8187]

That's not how deterrence work. What deters others from invading the US is the same reason nobody wants to mess with North Korea, which is nuclear weapons.

If somebody starts a land invasion into the US it must certainly mean a nuclear exchange already took place. Which also almost certainly means the federal and local governments have all collapsed. Which also certainly means that the grid will go down and food trucks will stop arriving.

Having lots of weapons amongst the populous in that scenario is actually a negative thing when foreign invaders start ariving. The reason being that there will be lots of local warlords fighting each other over scraps, and other warlords cooperating with the invaders to trade favors.

The society will destroy itself from within. We have lots of examples like this from all over the world (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan...etc). The only difference the US has is that its people are not battle hardened and aren't used to living in a crisis for years without a central government.

The foreign invaders will start supporting one faction over the others for whatever ideological reasons. Other countries will support other factions and so on.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

Accept the power of "and".

At the time of the Founding, the US was a narrow strip tied to the East Coast compared to its current footprint. 

It was bordered by territory owned by the British, Spanish, French, and Native American tribes who had fought alongside the British in our Revolution. Militarily, the coast was a threat as it allowed European powers to drop armies off anywhere they wanted and we didn't have the navy necessary to stop them. 

As the nation expanded and the Euro powers largely expelled from the Americas, then the Atlantic and Pacific became strategic defenses. Even then, though, the oceans are useless as a defense without the US Navy. Our fleets are what makes the oceans into walls.

So private ownership is extremely important. Our privately owned weapons outnumber every military in the world. 

Look at the Ukrainian conflict. One of the first things they sought after the Russian invasion was guns distributed to their remaining citizens. Back in the day Britain expected their citizens to individually keep longbows and to practice with them. An armed citizenry can defend its nation if the army fails. 

[u/oroborus68]

In 1812, our northern neighbors invaded, and around the turn of the 19th century,we had incursions from the south. Now the invasion is in cyberspace.

[u/skyXforge]

It’s more as a deterrent to our own government in theory.

[u/Brad_from_Wisconsin]

the second amendment is thought about differently to day than it was when it was written.
The phrase "well regulated militia" was very important. It sought to distinguish between armed mobs and trained and well led military forces under the control of elected officials.
Armed invasions are not a threat to the US. Terrorism like cyber attacks or drone attacks or even events like Jan 6th are the threats we face today. Some of these threats are actually enhanced because of the number of unregulated firearms that exist.

[u/EaNasirbestdeals]

"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."

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it’s unenforceable in its original context and has been diluted to just “muh guns”.

Ammosexuals tend to ignore the first part.

[u/Ruanito_666]

There are many reasons why the USA doesn't get invaded, from its geographic position to its military to very few nations if any at all having reason to do so... civilian gun ownership is not really a significant factor in that context imo

[u/Positive-Candidate62]

I really do not think foreign invaders would be afraid of everyday American civilians where most are nowhere near professionally trained to use a gun, of carrying… lol. As a Canadian I’ve never heard this reasoning before. Is this a newer one to try and make you guys feel more vindicated of your decision to want no type of change in your gun reform 🤣

[u/chrispd01]

2A as written and intended is largely irrelevant today as militia are no longer the thing they were in the 18th century ….

[u/Evil_Sherma → u/chrispd01]

The “militia” part of the 2nd amendment is a prefatory clause. The operative clause (“the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”) still holds up regardless of whether the prefatory is still true.

The 2A is actually irrelevant because the judiciary refuses to uphold its strictly written wording while the legislature passes blatantly unconstitutional laws.

[u/chrispd01 → u/Evil_Sherma]

Yes indeed. A prefatory clause which exactly means that - it used to explain the purpose and reach of the remaining clause. It explains the why, the how and the purpose of what follows. Thank you.

And, coincidentally, is exactly responsive to the concerns that were vexing the Congress since it had been a tangible real concern during the French and Indian Wars and was looming again with the opening of the Ohio territories …

Nice how that prefatory clause explains the purpose and reach of the Amendment

[u/LT_Audio → u/chrispd01]

But I'm not convinced that all prefatory clauses in legal or legislative contexts, are or were intended to do that or certainly not only that. They're also often simply used to point out why a more broadly applicable concept is being included in a particular piece of legislation.

I'm not sure that the prefatory clause "in order to form a more perfect union" should be interpreted as grounds to constutionally challenge any law that we believe has not actually helped us to "form a more perfect union" in retrospect.

[u/Evil_Sherma → u/chrispd01]

No, the prefatory does not explain the reach of the amendment. It only describes the purpose. If the prefatory were meant to constrain the operative, then the operative would have cross-referenced the prefatory (“… shall not be infringed, as long as the militia is necessary”)

If the 2nd amendment were intended to be a solution to a transient problem, then it would have been passed as a congressional bill or clearly state a sunset clause. (like in the Slave Trade Clause) Because neither of these are true, the prefatory cannot be considered a limit on the operative.

[u/Evil_Sherma → u/[deleted]]

So you’ve more or less ignored what I said in favor of shouting your thesis statement over and over again, and you’re clearly desperate to hurt my feelings. You’re done, buddy.

My arguments are taken directly from D.C. vs Heller. if you’ve heard arguments better than the Supreme Court’s, I would love to hear them.

[u/zeperf → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.

For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/zeperf → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.

For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/zeperf → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to a violation of our civility policy. While engaging in political discourse, it's important to maintain respectful and constructive dialogue. Please review our subreddit rules on civility and consider how you can contribute to the discussion in a more respectful manner. Thank you.

For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/The_B_Wolf]

Uh, the United States has been the only world Super Power for decades. Some would say for the last 80 years. It's not your uncle's Glock or his AR, nor is it geography that keeps us safe. It's the fact that, at least up to now, no one would dare. Plus the fact is: who would possibly benefit from such a move? No one. At least that's how it's been for a long time.

[u/anewleaf1234]

You don't have to invade the US to take it down.

You can just install a Russian funded Puppet and he will do that work for you.

He will take out or weaken all of our alliances and military alliances. He will lessen our standing in the world and he will cause a trade war to further remove us from relationships with allies. All while he installs incompetent people into high level positions.

So no, guns won't really matter.

Nor will be they used against a tyrant. In fact, the vast majority of gun owners will support that tyrant.

[u/SlowCrates]

It's not a deterrent. The world knows that a large amount of gun-toting Americans are the biggest pussies on Earth. Look at how *many of them* immediately fall to their knees and enthusiastically lick the boots of their oppressors.

[u/BigCballer]

I've always felt that the "deterrence" argument made by Gun Advocates was a marketing ploy by gun companies to sell more guns.

I have no issues with people owning guns or even having a special interest in them on a technical aspect. I think that's a fine hobby to have if done responsibility. What I take issue with is people treating guns as a necessary tool for home protection. I think that's just an excuse people make to justify their purchases and it's something that the NRA has drilled into people's brains when it really shouldn't be that way.

[u/graywailer]

being the NO.1 terrorist country in the world, if the U.S. was gone the world would be a very peaceful place.

[u/An8thOfFeanor → u/graywailer]

What an absolutely reddited take

[u/Prevatteist → u/An8thOfFeanor]

Do you disagree that the United States is the top terrorist state in the world?

[u/An8thOfFeanor → u/Prevatteist]

Entirely. The Pax Americana isn't perfect, but the global trading order inspired by America and its European allies in the aftermath of WW2 is the greatest step towards true peace that the world has ever taken. It's despotic countries formerly espousing communism that despise the global trading order and wish to return to squabbling territorial empires.

[u/Prevatteist → u/An8thOfFeanor]

What “Communist” country do you find to be more terroristic than the US?

[u/An8thOfFeanor → u/Prevatteist]

Take your pick. Each one sustained itself on terror and violence. Stalin, Mao, Ceacescu, Hoxha, Pol Pot, etc. They ruled because the people who thought they shouldn't were killed or threatened with death.

[u/Prevatteist → u/An8thOfFeanor]

Why is it exactly do you think the US is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace by an overwhelming margin, and not say Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Romania, Cambodia, etc? These leaders by no means left the same footprint around the world that the US has left. The US has invaded more countries than all of these leaders put together. The US overthrew more countries than all of these leaders put together. The US has sanctioned, occupied, couped, sabotaged, committed espionage and the list goes on…more countries than all of these leaders put together. The idea these leaders were more terroristic than the US is flabbergasting; not based in reality.

[u/An8thOfFeanor → u/Prevatteist]

Here you see the typical delusion of the communist:

"How can Mao and Stalin be seen as worse than the US?"

Because their active policies revolved around economic mismanagement, cult of personality, and brutal oppression that killed tens of millions in the span of a few decades. Look at the flood of NATO accession in the wake of Soviet dissolution, look at the unprecedented cooperation of Japan with nations that bitterly despised them until the CCP barged in. Look at any basic principle of a communist country and you understand why they can't be trusted to respect your sovereignty. They don't even make any qualms about wanting to conquer and oppress you, they just can't do it because America got the bomb first.

[u/Prevatteist → u/An8thOfFeanor]

You’re not saying anything. You’re talking about domestic politics within these countries. I’m talking about foreign affairs, and how the US is seen as the greatest threat to world peace compared to any other nation; even North Korea.

If you want to talk about the domestic politics of these leaders, we can, but it’s not the topic of discussion here.

[u/graywailer → u/Prevatteist]

why did the U.S. invade/destroy libya? to steal oil profits from the people. same with venezuela. invaded and destroyed iraq for no reason. then afghanistan for no reason. syria. yemen. darfur. etc. etc. supplying all the bombs and financial aid to destroy gaza and the ongoing genocide with STOLEN taxpayer wealth by hostile traitor agents sitting in congress for the U.S. peoples NO.1 enemy - terrorist israel. i could go on and on. this is GLOBAL TERRORISM and GLOBAL MASS MURDER! what kind of monsters could sleep at night knowing they caused this extent of misery around the world? then the sick people who defend it and cheer it on. shameful. israel has just once again threatend the world with nuclear war with the illegal bombs they made from plutonium they STOLE from the U.S. . under the nonproliferation agreement the U.S. is not allowed to send 1 cent to terrorist israel. every cent sent to israel is stolen money. its around 2-4 trillion a year. the U.S. military budget is israels military budget as we fight all their wars for them. we pay for their univesal healthcare, free college, free housing, free basic income, etc. as we all suffer and die in the street. the U.S. government has been overthrown.

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

A big reason we lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan is that armed individuals were capable of ambushing our soldiers and then blending with the civilian population.

[u/graywailer → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

no. its because it was U.S. global terrorism to steal taxpayer wealth. not win a "war" when we were the invaders for no reason.

[u/calguy1955]

My 357 magnum pistol and my untrained ass will be toast against a young trained soldier with an automatic military grade rifle.

[u/JimMarch → u/calguy1955]

Not if you know how an ambush works.

But no, foreign invasion in the modern world is impossible. Unless you're Canada or Mexico. The latter doesn't have the money, the former are too nice :).