• kleenbhole@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yes it is.

    Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      You mean including the highly documented rationale that historian uncovered?

      By the way, do you really think you could defeat the U.S. military with your gun collection? Even if you and a bunch of buddies got together?

      • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        As to your second paragraph, yep, yes, sure. We got beat by a bunch of illiterate desert goat rapists and jungle Asians. Just need to outlast the political will of the oligopoly

      • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        First of all, fuck this racist guy commenting to this thread. I hate that his kind are so often associated with people like myself who believe our population should remain armed.

        Second of all, the military cannot be called into domestic affairs, so your “question” is irrelevant. Maybe read more about history and the constitution before spurging your nonsense all over the place.

        But mostly… fuck racists, especially kleenbhole.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Where does the Constitution say the military cannot be involved in domestic affairs? You are probably thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which does limit the use of the U.S. military in domestic affairs, but wasn’t passed until 1878 and could be repealed.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons.

      Buried under the actual reasons? That somehow contradict the uncovered reason? Sounds like bullshit to me.

      All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

      Then how did bullshit theory that guns were to overthrow the government get buried for so long?