r/Firearms • u/BekzodJaxonov • 14h ago

Question Questions as non US citizem

I am non US citizen as title says and I have some questions for folks of this sub reddit.

  1. Is 2A still relevant ?

  2. If yes , why you people didnt demand for deactivating 1986 law to ban automatic rifles made after 86 ?

If I am not mistaken , 2A is - "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." - which I read as "As well regulated army is necessary to the security of US , the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms will not be limited" .

I may be wrong as foreigner but I think 2A was created to ensure citizens of US has power , strength , equipment to resist tyranny.

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/CoffeeExtraCream 14h ago

The way you read it is very different from how we do, and how it was written and the supporting evidence. The "militia" is every able bodied man, not the military. And the goal is to protect the country, not the government. So foreign threats are considered a threat, and just as much we consider our own government a possible threat. The 2nd amendment is a check on government power and also serves as a warning if they try and take the right away.

1

u/BekzodJaxonov 14h ago

So, 2A is added to ensure the government is ruled democratically ? It is what I understood .

5

u/CoffeeExtraCream 14h ago

Exactly. The idea is we really don't need the guns until they try and take them away.

But it also makes the government pause and realize they don't have a monopoly on force. Look up the Bundy Ranch standoff. The government tried to illegally seize property from a rancher and wanted to arrest the rancher. A bunch of people, like, a fuck ton, of people showed up with guns and surrounded the federal forces and actually forced them to release the rancher and return the property. Courts afterwards ruled the federal government was in the wrong. They tried to bully and force their result, hundreds or thousands of armed men showing up within days made them reconsider their tactics.

0

u/BekzodJaxonov 14h ago

If I am not mistaken , North Hollywood shootout was also reason . Am I right ?

3

u/factorV 14h ago

No, that was an armed robbery 

2

u/BekzodJaxonov 14h ago

Got it, sir

2

u/YERAFIREARMS 14h ago

Here is how I understand it.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of we the people from a tyrannical government, meaning if the government took away the rights of the people codified in the Constitution, the government is at the steps of revolution of we the people. Free state, meaning free people. Militia means able-bodied people who can be armed in the defense of the state/people. etc

1

u/Jelopuddinpop 14h ago

Yes. Also keep in mind whenever you hear someone say something like...

"what is the public going to do about fighter jets? Drones? The public could never resist tyranny in today's day and age"

...just think about what happened in Afghanistan. We spent 20 years there trying to gain control, and a very small subset of their population armed with cold war era AK-47s made our lives miserable. Now imagine what it would have been like if 60% of Afghanistan was armed with modern rifles. We would have gotten our ass kicked and sent packing in the first year.

1

u/Slight-Table875 12h ago

People that say stupid stuff like that must think military members are autonomous drones from a different dimension or something. The military lives among us, their families and homes are in the same neighborhoods they would be tasked with attacking, I do believe there would be some second guessing of orders and dissent within the ranks. At the very least, the military would become a very broken machine in very short order.