When America was founded, firearms could actually be used to overthrow a corrupt government.
There are almost no cases in history where this happened. And the big driver for the 2nd was southern states wanting to put down slave rebellions, and all the states wanting to continue their genocide of Native Americans. A citzenry with muskets might not survive a battle with a real military, but it sure as shit could overpower some enslaved people trying to resist and some pre-industrial people with bows and arrows.
I don’t buy this. Controlling firearms and restricting who exactly can join a militia was a common strategy for preventing rebellions at the time the United States was founded.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with giving armies firearms. The people responsible for putting down slave revolts were always armed.
There are almost no cases in history where this happened. And the big driver for the 2nd was southern states wanting to put down slave rebellions, and all the states wanting to continue their genocide of Native Americans. A citzenry with muskets might not survive a battle with a real military, but it sure as shit could overpower some enslaved people trying to resist and some pre-industrial people with bows and arrows.
I don’t buy this. Controlling firearms and restricting who exactly can join a militia was a common strategy for preventing rebellions at the time the United States was founded.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with giving armies firearms. The people responsible for putting down slave revolts were always armed.
See, this is why I love real conversation! Now I’m learning something! Thanks for dropping by and sharing!
Fr, I’d never heard this mentioned. It’s an all new take on the purpose of (state? local?) militias, for me anyway, I’ve got some reading to do now…