Sean CastenLook, I'm glad we're having a conversation about the hypocrisy of the legal logic used by America's gun nuts. But can we stop pretending this is a new thing? They have never advocated for universal access to firearms. They only want their team to be armed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/25/alex-pretti-gun-debate-second-amendment/
The NRA opposed open-carry in CA and got a bill signed in to ban the practice in 1967 under then Governor Ronald Reagan. It wasn't because they realized they'd gone too far. It was because black people were open-carrying. https://www.history.com/articles/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
To suggest that there is some intellectual inconsistency between an ideology that says it's OK if George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse shoot people in the street but a capital crime if Alex Pretti is carrying is to assume that their stated policy is their actual logic. It ain't.
America has a long history of people with unpopular ideas who are hostile to our democratic system and want to constrain democracy so that their ideas can flourish. It's how we got the Senate, and the 3/5ths rule, and the narrative that guns exist to stand up to a "tyrannical government."
After all, if you think that a government of, by and for the people is carrying out tyrannical ideas it is axiomatic that you think the will of the majority is a tyrannical imposition on your right to elevate your liberty over my equality.
(As an aside, the fact that these ideas go back to our inception when only 6% of the population could vote, thus sustaining that minority power largely explains why the most democracy-fearing members of the Supreme Court are all "originalists". But I digress.)
I recommend Carol Anderson's book "The Second" if you want to understand this history, and how we got 2A in the first place. It was decidedly NOT about making sure that future Alex Prettis could protect themselves from racist ICE agents who came on a Somali fraud pretext and started killing.
The TL;DR though is in plain text in the Constitution. When 2A referenced a well arm militia you can assume the writers were using that term in the same way they used it in the body of the Constitution, where Congress had the right to summon militias for only 3 reasons:
1) to enforce the laws of the US; 2) to defend against foreign invasions and 3) to suppress domestic insurrections. The folks who wrote this had direct, recent experience with Shay's Rebellion, the Revolutionary War and lived in constant fear of slave rebellions. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
Suffice to say that in the modern world, our nation's gun nuts are really not wild about the US government using a militia to enforce the law (see: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Constitutional Sheriff movement, etc.)
And given the size and power of the US military (esp as compared to our founding era when we neither had a standing army nor the tax system to pay for it) it also doesn't make any sense to suggest Congress might need to call up well regulated militias to defend against foreign invasion.
But the fear of "domestic insurrectionists" from Denmark Vesey to the Black Panthers is still there. And it's not accidental that the Scalia court ruled in Heller that the first 13 words of 2A are "merely prefatory" and no longer apply.
'cause they don't want to be a well regulated militia. They just want the right to kill people who they, in their sole discretion deem to be domestic insurrectionists. Is that what they say? No. But as the old saw goes: watch their feet, not their lips. /fin
Postscript: Here are two people who brought guns to a protest and are not only still alive, but were subsequently invited to speak at the 2020 RNC. The fact that this protest was in support of George Floyd does not imply a contradiction in the gun nut world view.
Hiker Geek 🌲💻🌲Here's one more protester that brought a gun to a protest and shot a couple of people and killed one.
In prison? Nope. He's doing great as a right wing media star.
MacCruiskeen@SeanCasten They didn't bring guns to a protest. They aimed guns *at* a protest.
Jason Bowen 🇺🇦@maccruiskeen @SeanCasten
Yes, massive distinction. Rittenhouse crossed state lines looking for people to shoot.
Yes, massive distinction. Rittenhouse crossed state lines looking for people to shoot.
DB@SeanCasten Rep. Casten as you know they don’t need to be consistent in 2A or anything else. There are millions of law abiding liberal gun owners. The “gun nuts” as you call them are the MAGA that DHS is recruiting. I already own firearms and with ICE/DHS/CPB forcibly entering homes without a warrant or probable cause, I am upping my game. People who own firearms are not “gun nuts” - that is a MAGA problem. #selfdefense #liberalgunowners #armyourfriends #2AforAll
danaNot only "brought guns," but brandished them at protestors. That woman's finger is on the trigger.
Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻@SeanCasten ICE have brought guns to every protest they've been at.
Captain Jack SparrowWrong. They were against against the protest, they went there to shoot or terrorise protestors, because they are white supremacists militia.
@SeanCasten you had me jumping on to Wikipedia for Denmark Vesey. Didn't learn THAT in school. Thank you.
Dr. Flowers@SeanCasten Isn't the national guard the well-regulated militia? Cause they were called as much as the "regular" military to fight abroad. Sometimes moreso.
Daniel (Not A Lawyer)Not necessarily. In Illinois the militia still exists , separate from the guard. It hasn't had an actual, official role or, even people, for probably over a century. Nowadays it is used to grant symbolic status to Civil War re-enactors and living history buffs.
@deedeeque We used to have that in Alabama. I was an officer in it for 8 years. We were take too our local e EMA, and and took care of armories when the NG was deployed. The big difference was we couldn't be federalized. @SeanCasten
April 
@AlliFlowers @SeanCasten What they are is the organized (as in organized by the state governnent, not as in "orderly") militia, in contrast to the unorganized militia (the citizenry at a minimum). I don't have it on hand but there's a cookbook from about the same time that includes in its lengthy 18th century subtitle the term "well regulated kitchen", as an example of the term definitely not referring to legal specification but to refer to being in good working order.
@lepidotos My kitchen is definitely not well-regulated. 🤣 @SeanCasten
@AlliFlowers @SeanCasten I'd recommend at least considering these points, even if you end up disagreeing with them: https://bitbang.social/@lepidotos/115963676755030294
Ultimately I'd respect the anti-gun position more if it didn't try to use a false air of legitimacy when there's a perfectly legitimate route for it in advocating for the repeal of the amendment rather than contorting it into a pretzel.
And true, mine isn't great either, but I did get it cleaned a bit recently and that's been nice.
Ultimately I'd respect the anti-gun position more if it didn't try to use a false air of legitimacy when there's a perfectly legitimate route for it in advocating for the repeal of the amendment rather than contorting it into a pretzel.
And true, mine isn't great either, but I did get it cleaned a bit recently and that's been nice.
Toot Ωncommon - SHUT 🇺🇸 DOWN@SeanCasten The well regulated militia is the National Guard, the existence of which is supposed to prevent federal tyranny by avoiding the need for a standing federal army to operate on US soil or operate abroad without a Congressional declaration of war for that matter. Since we have a permanent federal army always operating abroad, we’ve violated this principle since at least WWII and thus haven’t restrained the military industrial complex as Eisenhower warned.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458
@opethminded @SeanCasten No it isn't the NG is the organized (as in organized by the state, not as in orderly) militia. The government wouldn't need to grant itself the right to arm the NG because that's more or less the definition of what a government is, a group with enough legitimacy to hold the monopoly of power. Even if it did, it wouldn't use the phrase "the people" when writing the permission letter to the state governments.
David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)And given the size and power of the US military (esp as compared to our founding era when we neither had a standing army nor the tax system to pay for it)
And strong objections to having one at all. Several of the founding fathers wrote on this subject and it was quite controversial when the US eventually did get a standing army. Unfortunately, modern warfare requires sufficient training (and has enough specialised rôles) that a standing army is necessary if you face possible attack from a country that has one.
Chris@SeanCasten this right here is why it's dumb to think a 2A militia could stand in a shooting match with an entrenched authoritarian regime. Logistics, people. An army marches on its stomach. Strikes and mass civil disobedience (nonviolent, because that's the only way to ensure mass participation).
@SeanCasten Rep. Casten everyone in my state is, by law, a member of the militia. Legal precedent says that militia means the National Guard. You don’t like how 2A has been interpreted to mean there is an individual right to own firearms but that is *irrelevant* now. The question is whether the People can exercise those rights for #selfdefense in the face of tyrannical 4A and 1A violations. That is the question that you and other leaders must address.