You wrote:
- guns as tools were ubiquitous at the time it was written, there was no notion that they would be banned, as they were necessary for a variety of reasons
My reply: if there was no notion that they would be banned, the 2nd Amendment never would have occurred to the founders. It is because they knew governments might ban the people from keeping and bearing firearms that such a civil liberty needed to be protected.
You wrote:
- the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the idea that a coup could destroy their experiment. The main source of that fear was the idea of the military overthrowing the government, as had happened in other places
My reply: True, but it coups weren't the only things on their minds.
You wrote:
Now, in that context the 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly not about self-defense (that notion is relatively modern) but about creating state level militias that would not have the power to overthrow the government.
My reply: Yes and no. In a narrow context, maybe so, but states like Pennsylvania (abolitionist no less) had codified the RKBA with the self-defense of the people. Not every new state had an RKBA statement, but states like PA would probably have assumed that the RKBA and self-defense was inherent in the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights.
From the original PA Constitution:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
You wrote:
This is also why the US was deliberately founded w/o a standing army, to prevent coups.
My replay:
Yes.
You wrote:
Once the US got a standing army, the 2nd Amendment should've been scrapped, as the point of militias was to prevent that.
My reply:
Maybe not. When standing Armies were created, it made the RKBA even more necessary because coups were even more possible. I understand that modern technology has made it impossible for a civilian militia to win an all out war.
You wrote:
Decades of court decisions backed this up, but after two generations of propaganda and political court nominations, the USSC decided to pretend history didn't matter and redefined the 2nd Amendment to please gun manufacturers.
My reply:
Not quite. Anti-RKBA people read history one way and pro-RKBA people read it another. The writings of our founders and court decisions are hopelessly diverse and ambiguous on the RKBA. Everyone can find something to support their position because, like today, there were many points of view on the RKBA.
You wrote:
It's a meaningless relic at this point and should be trashed.
My reply:
Or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read