San Bernadino Terrorism and Radicalization

[eppie]

Not to deny the importance of "resistance to [other peoples'] empire," but the early US was a society where a wealthy white elite ruled over a large, enslaved population of black workers, who were themselves notably denied the right to carry a weapon for self defense.

-Jester

Yes, In fact, one of the "reasons" for compulsory militia was to prevent and subdue slave revolts and conflicts with the natives. I think though, preeminent concern must have been forces from France, Spain, and then eventually Britain as well. The years prior to the American revolution and Constitution were filled with international conflict fought between colonies e.g. expelling the Acadians.

What I don't get is that everybody in the US (well the pro gun people) are always referring to a document that was made in a time that was so much different than our current time.
How can you use the argument of a 'right' that was written down in a document from a time the country was continuously at war on its own turf, a country that had large parts of the population who were not allowed to vote (lets say it was a kind of IS caliphate avant la lettre), when there were no cars, no functioning government (compared to now) etc.
I mean without giving an opinion about pro or con guns. How is it possible that such amendments have never been changed in the constitution?

I mean if you think you need to defend yourself against your own government, isnt it better to move to Canada or so?

(or are those arguments just used by the gun lobby because they know people in the US are very sensitive with regards to their rights and basically stop thinking once the amendments are mentioned? )
You would expect the weapon industry would be satisfied by the money they make selling arms to the Saudies....that they wouldnt need to make that extra dollar by selling in there own backyard......not even a crack dealer would do that.