About the 2nd Amendment to the Constituion....

[Stuart G]

2nd Amendment:

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.

Keep in mind this one truth. There were no police forces in the U.S.A. at the time that was written. "A well regulated Militia" was the local "Police Force.".......and another very important point.........

The writers of the Constitution of the United States were very bright, but they had no idea what the future would hold.
Guns were very expensive then. No mass produced products in factories. NO TV, NO Mass Media, NO GUN SHOWS, NO THIS
AND NO THAT. PEOPLE RODE AROUND ON ............HORSES.........IF YOU COULD AFFORD ONE..........
NO RADIO, NO CARS, NO TRUCKS, NO RAILROADS, NO THIS, AND NO THAT.

PICTURING THE LATE 1700s ---AIN'T EASY....guns were expensive and only some people could afford them.

Also, education was very expensive and not for everyone. Imagine the fastest way to go was a well equipped sail boat.
But you cannot imagine that. Oh...got to add this..........NO TELEPONES, CELL PHONES, NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, NO PUBLIC
EDUCATION ...(OR very rare)...Food was very expensive. work was 6 days a week, no unions, no labor laws. etc. etc. etc.

If you can't picture the times when the U.S. Constitution was written, I am not sure you can criticize the writers of the
2nd Amendment. Get the picture....nope...............well.............

[3Hotdogs]

1. It may also have been written in response to the British attempt to confiscate weapons at Lexington

and Concord.

[former9thward]

2. Not sure what your point is but your history is wrong.

The 2nd amendment was not written with a police force in mind. There is nothing in the writings of the founders that suggest that. And whatever militias existed they did not do what we now consider police work.

Guns were not expensive and food was not expensive.

Example in 1786 100 pounds of beef was the equivalent of $90 in 2023 dollars. That is less than it is now.

https://www.foodtimeline.org/prices1786-1817.pdf

A two barrel gun cost the equivalent of $270 of 2023 dollars which is less than today.

https://247wallst.com/investing/2010/09/16/the-history-of-what-things-cost-in-america-1776-to-today/

[Stuart G]

3. Sorry history is wrong....?

[former9thward]

16. Not history, your "history".

[brush]

6. Wouldn't $270 of 2023 dollars have been a fortune back then?

[Ocelot II]

9. It said *the equivalent* of $270 of 2023 dollars.

Based on the inflation rate since then, an item that costs $270 in 2023 dollars would have been about $8 in 1789 dollars.

[brush]

10. So much for clarity in writing. Why not just say "would've cost about $8.00 then"?

[MichMan]

12. Because knowing what something cost back then has no context without knowing what it equates to now

Costs of items from the past are always referred to in terms of current dollars.

[former9thward]

15. I am sure my 5th grade writing teacher is turning in her grave.

I apologize for flunking 5th grade writing. I have never recovered.

[former9thward]

14. It was 3 pounds.

Which is the equivalent of $270 today.

[brush]

17. Oh, were pounds mentioned?

[former9thward]

20. At the link.

[Xolodno]

11. Exactly.

The newly created USA may have had some imperial ambitions, but they sure as hell not at the level of the British Empire. Standing armies were needed and could be completely be volunteer (granted they did coerce a bit). The USA was not an economic powerhouse as India and China. Silk, spices, etc. vs. beaver pelts? Yeah the USA didn't have much to fear from European powers at the time. The only thing they wanted was cheap cotton...and we know how that turned out.

[Ocelot II]

4. Sorry, no. The "well-regulated militia" was never intended as a police force.

Most historians believe that the primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the existence of militias and avoid the need for a professional standing army. A secondary reason was to have an organized means of protecting White settlers from Black or Native uprisings. But the militia was not a police force - it did not have the responsibility of law enforcement.

And guns were common, relatively inexpensive and necessary for hunting, which much of the rural population relied on for food - which was not especially expensive, since so many people farmed and produced their own. If you had a farm, chances are you had a gun and a horse.

[Stuart G]

5. People make mistakes.......Ok...??? ....or ...???

[Ocelot II]

7. There's a lot of analysis of the Second Amendment to be found online.

If you want to go right to the source, read the Federalist Papers, for example: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

[Stuart G]

8. Thank You for the link....Appreciate your mentioning the "Federalist Papers."

[sanatanadharma]

13. Today's gun apologists are wrong; the future has unfolded, and accepting the current carnage is evil

"The writers of the Constitution of the United States were very bright, but they had no idea what the future would hold."

All arguments about what life was like in 1789 or what the founders intended are irrelevant to the current problem of guns in the USA.
The problem as it exists now MUST be dealt with and that requires changing or ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Today's gun apologists are wrong and are part of the problem. Knowing how gun violence has unfolded and accepting the current carnage is evil. Period!

[GuppyGal]

18. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an

emergency is a militia so anything other that that is bullshit and this purposeful perversion of it's meaning has gotten us into this mess. The founding dudes never meant for any of this hence the militia part.

They didn't just say everybody who's anybody in this county has a right to a gun. I'm so tired of this.

[Prairie_Seagull]

19. Strict constructionalism or Living document. There is only one answer IMO

One has a fierce eye to the past and one looks forward. The fight is there in my thinking.

Even if one is a strick constructionist. I don't believe the 2A holds water, it's a sieve. It is not about progressing into the future. It's about...well we all have our ideas about that.

[Model35mech]

21. Aren't Sheriffs and their deputies the equivalent of Police?

The first Sheriffs in North America were established in 1634

Now I really don't want to get into a pissing match over wikipedia 'facts'. I really don't want what will be another parsing of meaningless details, like fighting over a semi-automatic rifle with or without a bayonet mount

But, it seems to me that Sheriffs and their deputized assistants existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment and for good reason... Things such as the Mayflower Compact were useless without the capacity of the community to have an authority to enforce them. And the Mayflower Compact was not the only code of civilian order that existed in the American Colonies.

The first community jail was established in what became the US in Barnstable Massachusetts in 1690. Who was it that incarcerated and cared for those jailed peoples? They may not have been called 'police' but they were certainly involved in policing functions needed to identify, capture and jail people under the law.

I really think this crap about 'there were no police' is nothing more than a cherry-picked bit of history twisted by gun-supporters to make do-it-yourselfism, vigilantism, and stand your groundism look like they have a base in our cultural tradition and are therefore appropriate to our landscapes in 2023 CE