In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands.

Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.

The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist.

If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.

Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?"

No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare.

Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11.

It costs a buck o'five, by the way.

[0]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?

Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows.

-------------

Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting:

> Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order

Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that?

----------------

Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law.

"During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1]

This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army.

Going further back to British history:

"Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2]

Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting.

Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King:

> Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2]

In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution.

In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not.

If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.

[1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/#

[2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html*

* [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.

Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”