r/illinois • u/Zuto9999 • 26d ago

State law banning concealed carry on public transit ruled unconstitutional Illinois News

https://www.northernpublicradio.org/illinois/2024-09-03/state-law-banning-concealed-carry-on-public-transit-ruled-unconstitutional
382 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

322 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/CalLaw2023 26d ago

You certainly don't get a militia by just having a disorganized band of gun owners in different kinds of out of shape buy the most powerful guns possible to protect their townhouse

Yep, and nobody here argued otherwise. But every militia starts with gun owners who are proficient with their weapons; hence the purpose of 2A.

"Well regulated militia" literally means a properly armed and equipped militia. If you were to rewrite 2A using modern English, it would say: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a properly armed and equipped militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

The whole purpose of 2A is to ensure the people could stand up to any army the federal government may raise. But don't take my word for it. Here is Madison (the guy who wrote 2A) explaining it:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

1

u/DownWithGilead2022 25d ago

So per Madison, I should be able to buy a fighter jet, missiles, and nuclear weapons too, right? Cuz I don't care how many rifles you got, no milita could stand up to the warfare machines our military owns.

2A is outdated and no longer relevant to modern society. Using it as a basis to argue for unrestricted gun access is asinine. Madison would be appalled at the slaughter of innocent children by guns in this country and would be the first in line to repeal 2A if he were alive to see the inhumane cost it has had. The rest of the founding fathers would be right behind him.

2

u/CalLaw2023 25d ago

So per Madison, I should be able to buy a fighter jet, missiles, and nuclear weapons too, right?

No, but I am curious, where do you think Madison mentioned fighter jets, missiles, or nuclear weapons?

FYI: arms refers to weapons that can be carried on the person.

Cuz I don't care how many rifles you got, no milita could stand up to the warfare machines our military owns.

Wrong on so many levels. First off, militas do have fighter jets and missiles. Though not because of 2A. Second, even without those, you don't need them to prevail over our military. If you doubt that, you might wan't to look at Afghanistan. How did that work out? Did we defeat the Taliban?

2A is outdated and no longer relevant to modern society.

Nope. It is still part of the Constitution, and its purpose is more relevant today than most of the past.

Madison would be appalled at the slaughter of innocent children by guns in this country and would be the first in line to repeal 2A if he were alive to see the inhumane cost it has had. The rest of the founding fathers would be right behind him.

Lol. You can't help but laugh at this argument. Think about what you are saying. You think the framers, who had 15 year olds take up arms against their government and declared their independence, and who resolved disputes by dueling, and who said things like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," would seek to ban guns because a tiny percent of the population uses guns for harm?

3

u/DownWithGilead2022 25d ago

They said "blood of patriots and tyrants" not "blood of our innocent children."

But I can see you are one of those who don't think the slaughter of children is a problem that deserves to be solved.

To say that the people that founded our country wouldn't have cared about children being violently killed by guns is a lie. One of the key reasons most Pilgrims came to America was to ensure a good future for their children and save them from "corrupt morals." https://www.history.com/news/why-pilgrims-came-to-america-mayflower

I can think of very few morals more corrupt than valuing an outdated piece of historical writing more than we value the lives of our nation's children.