mentsch
“It is clear that the intent was to have an armed populace to counter a centralized standing army”
Absolutely no argument there. I never argued that point. My argument is that today 230 years later practicly it doesn’t make sense
I would counter
1) Intent isnt quite as important as what is written (ask Scalia) it says “militia”
Congress currently defines “militia as ” (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” (United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 )
Unless that definition is deemed unconstitutional a private citizen is not included in the 2nd amendment (although their intent may have been otherwise).
2) “And yes we have already rehashed the nuclear weapon and cannon question)”
We have , though I’m not clear why you believe those arent protected. (you said they arent but havent explained why not, and more importantly what right we have to ban them) and makes your postiion HARDER to sustain since clearly you agree that practicly speaking you dont actually want citizenry to beable to put down the government. So the relying on the “intent” is really a charade, as while true historically you clearly dont actually think that it is good practical policy
You also havent explained in practical terms how this intent carries out
who decides when the centralized army has become tyrannical?
Is there any armed uprising in >230 years of US history that you support?
“Google “the week Hamilton solved America’s gun problem””
I’ve read that article and agree completely (those deemed unable of joining eg mental problems, criminalrecords lose their guns)