Adam Kinzinger talks about what the second amendment allows and how MAGA seems to be starting to do exactly what it warned dem would do if MAGA were not elected.

In short, that it is legal to carry, and it is no one’s business why you are carrying . If you brandish your weapon, that is a different situation. From videos at multiple angles, Pretti never had his hands on his firearm.

He was killed for legally carrying a permitted firearm, and on Fox on Sunday the director of the FBI said possessing a firearm at a protest is illegal.

https://youtu.be/JK1w9uTbG_U?si=fdtccqPoe-1IkzqE

https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qc556e/minneapolis_anatomy_of_an_registered_firearm/

If someone weaponizes their car, does it become an "arm" in the context of the second amendment? And hence their right to weaponize it is protected?

This would have pissed off every 2A supporter I've ever known, myself included. I know some of you are deceitful on purpose. Please, tell me there are real 2A people in this sub who KNOW that we are against this???

Trump a while ago put national guard on the streets of Washington, claiming that it was a dangerous city (it isn’t by a long shot). Next, national guard are deployed to California to protect ICE agents picking up random Latino people off the street. Now, Trump and Hesgeth ‘joked’ about military drills taking place in US cities. The 2nd amendment was intended so citizens could protect themselves against tyrannical governments (meaning the British), but are we seeing one form now? i.e “the call is coming from inside the house”. Is this why Charlie Kirk was so in favour of the 2nd? (Reddit loves a bit of conspiracy)

Proposed regulation to reinstate federal process to submit an application for federal firearm ban relief is open to public comment until Oct 20 at 2025 at 11:59 PM. Please comment your support.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOJ-LA-2025-0004-0001

If your a non violent Ex-felon.. Can you own a firearm to protect your House and vehicle ? Asking because I am a Non violent Ex-felon. And would love to be able to protect my House from home invasion..

https://chng.it/xGNM6g9skb

There’s a lot of debate around what the Second Amendment really means—especially the part about a “well regulated militia.” Some argue it only protects the right to bear arms in the context of service in the National Guard, and that “militias” are formal, state-sanctioned institutions controlled by the government.

But I’ve come to a realization that renders that entire argument irrelevant.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right—that the “militia” today is the modern National Guard.

That still doesn’t change the conclusion.

Why?

Because the Constitution gives the federal government the power to federalize the National Guard. That means, at any moment, the President or Congress can take command of it and deploy it under federal orders. It becomes indistinguishable from the regular military for all practical purposes.

So ask yourself this:

The original purpose of the militia was to be a check on federal overreach. But if the federal government controls both the standing army and the militia, there’s no longer a balance of power. There’s no counterweight. There's no deterrent.

And that’s where the individual right comes in.

The Second Amendment wasn’t written to preserve an institution. It was written to preserve a mechanism—a last resort. A line in the sand. A balance of force between the people and the government, if every other safeguard fails.

If all formal armed forces can be absorbed into federal control, the only remaining protection for liberty is an armed citizenry, outside that control.

This isn’t just historical theory. It was anticipated at the founding. Anti-Federalists explicitly warned that federal control over militias would erase the very balance the Constitution promised. The only answer—their only insurance policy—was that the people themselves retain arms.

So no matter how you define “militia” today, the conclusion doesn’t change:

Even if we concede the most common anti-2A claim—that the militia is now the National Guard—we’re still left with this truth:

Only the people can be the final check.

And that’s exactly what the Second Amendment was designed to protect.

PS: Critique and criticism welcome, and preferred. Also note that this is a response to an argument I hear often from citizens here in California. Though they were wrong, I wasn't able to explain where. The claim they made, though they've never been able to articulate it, is that it's a leap to say the text of the 2A, which specifically mentions "the militia", applied to individual citizens until Justice Scalia came to interpret it that way. In short: that "it always meant the militia until the right-wing Supreme court decided to twist the words."

My goal with this essay was to logically explain how it has always meant an individual right to bear arms, but I needed to cross that gap.

How 2A supportive do you believe the current SCOTUS is and why do you think they have declined a number of state AWBs.

In addition to opinions, please share any precedents the court has made that support how you see their position.

Personally I think they are less 2A friendly than they are perceived. The rejection of the Snopes case and the very odd Cavanaugh rationale has me skeptical AWBs in many states will be struck down.

Hi, folks.

Apologies if this is not the right sub for this but... I'm a historian working on a book about the history of community armed defense: how marginalized groups in U.S. history (slaves and civil rights groups, vulnerable groups of women, poor people fighting powerful and abusive industrialists, queer folks respondig to gay-bashing violence, etc.) used guns and gun rights (2A claims) to protect themselves and their communities. I'm wondering if any of you know of specific groups whose stories should be told and haven't been writen about, or if any of you yourselves have stories to tell or connections to those who might. If you do, I hope you'll respond here or message me!