• FluorideMind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean it’s really how far you want to take samantics.

    I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that’s part of the whole debate about the second.

    What does it mean to you?

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,

      Because they didn’t have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.

      That’s also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it’s supposed to mean you can’t make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, and that was proven to be ludicrous once Connecticut and Pennsylvania started shooting at each other over who’s stuff was who’s

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s incorrect. The right to form groups (for any purpose) is guaranteed by the first amendment right to association, not the second.

      The Constitution only uses the word “militia” in the singular. There is only one militia.

      Basically, “militia” is who we are until we are drafted into an army or the navy.