I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said
The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
If my choices are the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment vs the opinion of some teenager on Lemmy, I’m gonna have to go with the former
The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
Suuure it is 🙄
Except that’s not what the amendment itself says. That’s Alexander Hamilton’s opinion, NOT the rationale that was agreed on when drafting the text
And a bit of imagination to make the unconnected pieces fit together to mean what you want them to mean.
You’re acting no better than the libertarian nutjobs who insist that taxation is theft and also unconstitutional.
If my choices are the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment vs the opinion of some teenager on Lemmy, I’m gonna have to go with the former
the opinion of one of the guys who wrote the amendment ≠ the amendment OR the reason for the amendment, which explicitly mentions the ACTUAL reason.
That shouldn’t be so difficult a concept to grasp.
Ok champ