In your opinion, does the second amendment specify that you can bear arms as long as you're part of a militia (now the national guard) or does it give each individual the right to bear arms, outside of the militias of the several states?
If they had meant for this individual right to be applied only to those actively enrolled in a militia, they would have said so. The brief statement regarding the well-regulated militia merely clarifies how important this individual right is.
The anti federalists wanted the bill of rights because the constitution was an expansion of federal powers beyond what they ever thought real. Individuals wouldn't be able to protect themselves from this big monster they saw, only militias could.
Democrat, Republican, whatever: when you grow up in Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine, you're raised to respect your gun rights. I've just always thought of it as a fundamental right. It causes problems, but I think those have less to do with...
... guns and more to do with the people using them. And if guns were made illegal, they'd find a way to get them and they'd still do harm. Despite considering myself rather liberal socially, I'm pretty conservative on this issue.
No question the individual held up by SCOTUS as well as many statements made by Jefferson and others about self defense before and after the Constitution.
The SCOTUS settled this 70 years ago when it said the Amendment applied to individuals and not militia members. It is settled law despite the continued use of this argument.
Rons: are you implying that guns are needed for protection from this government or just that the amendment should stand as is so we don't lose one more Right?
Protect us? From the government? I challenge you to get out your finest 9 mm and do your best against the drones. They are practicing right now in the Middle East!
The states eventually organized militias which when the national guards were created were seen as the legal successors to the organized militias if each state.
Technically they were still organized though. I don't follow that line personally, but I figured I would ask the question, that said the constitution isn't a dead document, but I'm guessing that's one place we differ on.
Several states required that all guns be registered so that they could quickly call up those with weapons and form the militia at a moments notice. I'd love to see the reaction if a state did that and sent all those with guns to Afghanistan.
Not quite. The states had some control over the militia, but not what you're saying, if you're saying they could use it against the federal government.
To quote the constitution, congress may: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment