I didn’t say the text literally says it, but again, that’s what it was for, at least in part. If a free state meant external attack, the people wouldn’t need a militia, the military would handle that. The people have the right to bear arms *in case* the government is unfairly oppressing them.
If that’s what they meant, they would have said that.
I agree it’s hilarious that they wrote the most bizarrely worded sentence in the entire constitution instead of just saying guns are for standing up against a tyrannical government.
There’s a lot of bizarre stuff in there. I think in general we can’t assume they would have said things more clearly if that’s what they meant though. They also could have never predicted or understood today’s world. Even though they called Trump pretty well.
Because that wasn't the purpose. All states have an authorized militia (aka National Guard) and laws forbidding unauthorized militias.
They do now, but they didn’t in 1791.
Every town had a militia. They had laws requiring people to drill regularly. In towns, militia arms and ammo were often kept in a central location. The country was sparsely settled and for outlying areas, guns were tools.
Sure, but they didn’t “have an authorized militia (aka National Guard) and laws forbidding unauthorized militias.”
What they didn't have was a standing army. That was what militias were for.
Nope. The Founders were hostile to standing armies. They had a lot of experience with them during the war and wanted local militias to be the army. Did you never wonder why lots of Civil War regiments had "militia" in their name.
