Police say a mother is facing a child endangerment charge after her toddler found a gun in her purse and accidentally fired it in a southern Ohio Walmart store last week
    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      35·
      2 years ago

      Since when did USA become so anti freedom?
      The toddler is clearly part of a militia, to prevent government oppression.
      So he has every right to carry and fire whatever weapon in whichever place and direction he chooses.

          • Doubletwist@lemmy.world
            7·
            2 years ago

            If you go with that reading, then one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn’t require the allowance of privately owned/held firearms at all, but would be satisfied by state, and/or local governments organizing their own “militias”, with arms purchased, stored and controlled in much the same way as our national military does, but managed by said militia organization. In such a reading, banning the private ownership and use of firearms could conceivably be enacted without running afoul of the second amendment.

            I’m not saying that I propose this or that I think it’s a good idea, just that one could make the case.

          • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            Back in the day “well regulated” meant “well armed and equipped”.

            So, in order to form a proper defense of the country, any able bodied man could be called up (the militia), and it was necessary this body of men be well armed and equipped.

            You may already know this, but Federalist Paper No. 29 touches on that subject.

            "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

            https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        I think the biggest difference between then and now in that regard isn’t the meaning of “well regulated”. It’s “being necessary to the security of a free State”. The expectation at the time was that we wouldn’t have a standing professional army to defend the nation in times of war, and we’d have to conscript militias. This was the norm at the time, and the US being a new, and therefore poor, nation, that is what the plan was. However, that isn’t the case anymore. The whole second amendment hinges on militias being necessary, and since it isn’t its moot.

        I’m fine with “gun rights” and ownership of firearms, with reasonable expectations. I think they’re fun to use, and they have a purpose. A certain level of training and competency should be required though (training paid by taxes so poor people can also own them), and should include proper storage lessons.