The 2nd amendment was drafted at a time when there were no standing armies. While cannons existed, most battles were decided by individual soldiers with their personal weapons.
In the modern world, you still need individual soldiers with individual weapons to hold terrain, but it’s very difficult to advance or take terrain from a modern military without artillery and bombs. So, a militia could maybe ensure that an attacking force was never able to fully settle and control a region (i.e. what the Taliban managed vs the western forces in Afghanistan) it can’t really conquer much if opposed by a real army with real army toys.
The real joke of the 2nd amendment is that it was obviously intended to be about citizen militias used to fight off opposing armies, but has been transformed into people’s right to own whatever they want for “self defence”, which 90% of the time actually means suicide, road rage, domestic violence, accidental shootings, mass shootings, gang warfare, police shootings, armed robberies, etc.
Yeah the best that could maybe be accomplished with the 2nd amendment would be the creation of anti-federal militia. Basically ganking federal agents such as ICE, FBI, and border patrol when they popup as needed, but even that would be questionable at best against the National guard.
The other thing that has changed since the 1700s is communications technology. In 2025 in theory it’s possible for normal people to instantly communicate in a way that the government can’t monitor. But, realistically, the way most people communicate could easily be intercepted in real time by the government, so it would be difficult to organize any kind of resistance against the government.
The 2nd amendment was drafted at a time when there were no standing armies. While cannons existed, most battles were decided by individual soldiers with their personal weapons.
In the modern world, you still need individual soldiers with individual weapons to hold terrain, but it’s very difficult to advance or take terrain from a modern military without artillery and bombs. So, a militia could maybe ensure that an attacking force was never able to fully settle and control a region (i.e. what the Taliban managed vs the western forces in Afghanistan) it can’t really conquer much if opposed by a real army with real army toys.
The real joke of the 2nd amendment is that it was obviously intended to be about citizen militias used to fight off opposing armies, but has been transformed into people’s right to own whatever they want for “self defence”, which 90% of the time actually means suicide, road rage, domestic violence, accidental shootings, mass shootings, gang warfare, police shootings, armed robberies, etc.
Yeah the best that could maybe be accomplished with the 2nd amendment would be the creation of anti-federal militia. Basically ganking federal agents such as ICE, FBI, and border patrol when they popup as needed, but even that would be questionable at best against the National guard.
The other thing that has changed since the 1700s is communications technology. In 2025 in theory it’s possible for normal people to instantly communicate in a way that the government can’t monitor. But, realistically, the way most people communicate could easily be intercepted in real time by the government, so it would be difficult to organize any kind of resistance against the government.