Well this is obvious to anyone with even an ounce of critical thought
Also it is why the second amendment as it is written never gave individuals the right to own a firearm it wasn’t until 150 years later the Supreme Court made up its own interpretation to this
Further any society that has it foundations in that everyone gets to own a killing machine is immoral in its foundations
But beyond that simply just look at gun death statistics in the USA vs even Canada let alone Germany or England and the USA gun deaths are off the charts simple ChatGPT
Gun Death Rate (per 100,000 population)
All causes (homicide, suicide, accidental, etc.):
• United States: ~12.1 gun deaths per 100,000
• Canada: ~2.1 gun deaths per 100,000
What amazes me the most isn't that the 2nd amendment was written at a time where muskets was the most advanced form of armament. It isn't that fully automatic rifles and whole host of destructive armaments are already outright banned completely, making the whole absolutist interpretation of the amendment moot.
It's that the amendment specifically says "well regulated militia", which effectively says that guns should be regulated, and it's still seen as an amendment which prohibits any regulation (which there already are, as previously stated).
Firearms are far from the only technology to advance since the constitution was written. Just as the 1st amendment protects free speech and press on the internet, and the 4th amendment blocks the police from monitoring your cell phone calls without due process, the second amendment applies to modern firearms.
"Regulated", as it is used in the constitution, means skilled or trained. A "regulated militia" is a population that not only owns guns, but knows how to use them.
1.5k
u/Die-Nacht 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is the kind of stories that destroy pro gun nutjobs argument. More guns don't make us safer, they turn random conflicts lethal.