[solidsnack9000]

It is strange that you say that because the wording is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and not “the right of the militia...” and, again, not the right of the states.

The militia certainly are relevant but how they are relevant is the question, not the answer. There are a lot of ways to argue about that, but the right of keeping and bearing arms is literally called the right “of the people” — it isn’t assigned to any other body and the founders certainly had the language to do so if they wanted to.

How we keep and bear the arms is a great question. To my own mind, it would be better if training were more front-loaded. Right now, you buy a gun to be able to get training — seems backwards. It could also be much better if more people held guns through equitable ownership of trusts with firearms homed at a range or other secure location. The net effect would be fewer, more varied and better maintained firearms. The trust also provides a locus for training standards, liability insurance and cooperation with law enforcement.

[diminoten]

It's called a right of the people because back when it was written, the militias were made up of "the people", but not in an individual, "each person gets a say" kind of way.

This isn't the scholarly debate people make it out to be; there is a clear meaning, and it's been muddled over the past 30 years by special interests who have corrupted the original intent of the law.

The problems the second amendment was written to solve don't exist anymore, so the second amendment shouldn't exist anymore.

[solidsnack9000]

What were the problems the 2nd Amendment was written to solve, and what happened to them?

There isn’t anything scholarly or muddled about reading the “the right of the people” to reference a right held by people and not by states or the federal government.

[diminoten]

Why are you asking me to give you a history lesson? Go look it up! Much more authoritative sources than I available to you if you actually want to know what was going on at the time.

Once you've done that you will realize that it was VERY specifically written to deal with a problem going on at the time. Hell, there are even comments in this very submission that also describe.

[solidsnack9000]

I am asking you to clarify and support your position — to say what the problems you are referring to actually are, and how, in your view, they went away — not to give me a history lesson.

[diminoten]

> What were the problems the 2nd Amendment was written to solve, and what happened to them?

Google this. Get a factual basis under your feet and our conversation can continue. Figure out what Britain was trying to do at the time to the then-colonies, what laws it was passing. Go read federalist paper #46, understand Madison's contemporary writings of the time to get a better view of the mindset of the author of the Second Amendment. Read other contemporary writings, read opinions on the various Supreme Court decisions.

Do some homework, then ask the question again because while I could give you this lesson with my viewpoint already embedded, you need to arrive there on your own if your mind is actually going to be changed.

[solidsnack9000]

Please present your position in a verifiable way, that someone can inquire after.

Where you say, “The problems the second amendment was written to solve don't exist anymore, so the second amendment shouldn't exist anymore.”, you present a claim in a vague way, difficult to argue for or against, because you don’t say what the problems were or how you know they were solved.

This is not about me doing my homework or lacking necessary knowledge — my unwillingness to fill in the gaps in your argument is not indicator of some insufficiency on my part. Telling me to “Google this” and get a “factual basis under my feet” is simple rudeness, and besides the point.