The originalists would agree that the Second Amendment allowed the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government, right? So, why weren’t the Jan 6th insurrectionists armed when they stormed the Capitol? Or they not believe that’s what it means?

@pratik Guns are banned in Washington D.C.

@pratik Further, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both outlined and fleshed out the thoughts behind the second amendment in Federalist 29 and 46 and both would likely argue that State National Guards properly fulfill that vision and the amendment's clause of "well regulated militia" is thus satisfied under that.

@pratik In other words; want to exercise your right to bear arms? Great! Join your well regulated state militia which achieves the aims of protecting your state's rights against federal tyranny.

@patrickrhone I agree but I’m responding to the originalists arguments in favor of 2A. Why isn’t someone asking this of the rioters? Make them say it that DC banning guns made them not carry guns. I want to show that to Ted Cruz.

@patrickrhone Yup. Nowhere does it imply an individual’s right to bear arms. My take is, if some rioters claimed they were their state’s militia, would it justify them storming the Capitol with guns?

@pratik Agreed. It'd be... Pretty funny.

That said, there is so much hypocrisy and self own amongst that group it would be very low hanging fruit to bait them with.

The Proud Boys, tellingly, even would have failed this test.

@pratik I've always believed the problem is the second comma:

"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."

Thus turning a single idea into two independent clauses.

@pratik I believe the framers would have better stated the intentions (explained in Fed. 29 and 46) as:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

That is what they really meant to say if Hamilton and Madison are to be believed. A single clear thought about the why/when/where with no independent clauses and less potential for interpretation.

But, I'm just some guy sitting in Covid isolation so what do I know?

@patrickrhone Have heard that too but it makes no sense to have those two seemingly unrelated ideas into one. Or it’s just badly written.

@rcrackley I'm weathering the symptoms which are mild in consideration of alternatives.

Not entirely sure Hamilton or Madison might have agreed on the National Guard front (mainly because it is largely an arm of the actual military at this point) but they sure as shit believed in the idea of well-regulated militia of citizens trained in how to safely use weapons as defense.

@pratik It's written in a language that made perfect sense to them and everyone else at that time. The intention was not only obvious but they went to pains to explain it further.

It is we, today, who choose to interpret it otherwise.

@pratik P.S. If you've never read The Federalist Papers I highly recommend it. So important for understanding the mechanics of not just all of our laws but in nation building itself.

@patrickrhone But if it’s open to a different interpretation several years later, it doesn’t really stand up to the test of time.

@patrickrhone Not since grad school when it was part of my Logic in Public Policy class.

@pratik It's because we are ignoring what the framers actually wrote (Fed. 29 is literally called, "Federalist No. 29 - Concerning the Militia").

And, also, trying to apply the ideas they had for a nation of under a million people and 13 states to 300 million and 50.

They, also, figured that we'd amend, clarify, and change things as we grew. Like we did for almost the first 200 years of this country.

@patrickrhone And I’m agreeing with you which is why I find the interpretations of the so-called Originalists baffling.

@pratik But, with all this said, I believe we are in agreement here. Guns should be as regulated as the militia they were intended to be part of. And, with the death of our Democracy at our doorstep, there is no greater urgency.

@pratik Me too. The Originalists don't actually read the very things they claim to adhere too. Only so far as it fits their worldview. Same with the Bible too.

@patrickrhone I doubt your rewording would have much of an effect. I have, several times, talked to 2A advocates who have shouted 'shall not be infringed.' My take away was that they had a very strong distrust of...well, pretty much everything. They read 'right of the people', 'keep and bear arms', 'shall not be infringed'. Those phrases validate their feelings; other implications are ignored, and consulting a lawyer is the opposite of what they want to do.

@cliffordbeshers I fear you are likely correct. Like I said in a later reply, they read the things that fit their worldview and ignore the rest. And, they do so with almost everything.

@cliffordbeshers Should also state I have many good friends who are 2A guys and have these sorts of conversations often. (But they are reasonable people who actually read and know what the framers intended and very much support engaging ideas around training, regulation, etc).

@patrickrhone Ah, it took me so long to write a reply, I didn't get there yet. And yes, there are many 2A advocates who understand these tradeoffs, but that urge to defend is so primal in many that I think the wording will always be secondary.

@odd Yep, when simplified that’s pretty much it.

@patrickrhone where is the line between "arms" and something beyond that like a fighter plane or a nuclear weapon? Arms aren't really a useful tool to overthrow government oppression anymore

@hjertnes Some 2A advocates agree with that idea and believe “right to bear arms” means the right to own tanks and bombs and anything else they would need to fight off the government.

@patrickrhone can't they use their energy on something — I don't know — useful?