06-23-2016, 11:03 PM
(06-23-2016, 08:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: Au165Probably should be it's own thread, but I often wonder if an amendment 250 years old about the right to have a gun fits in the world we live in today.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Above is the amendment in question, and a good question it is.
And, it can certainly be argues the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having them to perform in the service of a well regulated militia does fit in today's world. But this would not guarantee any right to hunters, to sport shooters, or to those who wanted a gun for personal protection. It would only guarantee the right of those who keep and bear arms for the purpose of serving in a well regulated militia.
Now, that could be interpreted to include active military service members, those serving in the National Guard, police officers, and even members of local militia clubs under the banner of churches, civic organizations, or just "the [your town name here] First Street Militia" (or any other street name or neighborhood name, e.g. "the [your town name here] west side militia." But these keepers and bearers of arms would need to be persons who were members of well regulated militias. At minimum this would require any such militia group to have a command structure, code of conduct, some communication and training protocols, and regular militia training - hence they would would be well regulated.
Just buying a gun, any gun, does not make you a member of a well regulated militia, it doesn't serve the purpose of that Constitutionally mandated necessity for a free state, and therefore that right is not protected by the Second Amendment according to my (and many others') reading of it. Unfortunately, to date legal rulings have ignored the clearly stated item "necessary to the security of a free state" - i.e. "a well regulated militia" - and interpreted the amendment to mean you can have unfettered access to weapons for no reason whatsoever.
It seems clear to me and many this is not what the amendment intended. And it is certainly possible at some point the courts will read the second amendment in whole and interpret it as so many do. For now, they have focused on a fragment. It is sort of like saying in Matthew chapter five Jesus said, "an eye for an eye." Well, he did say that, but went on to say this was not his teaching, and instead instructs those confronted with evil to "turn the other cheek," and "go the extra mile." So, saying Jesus said an eye for an eye is deceptive and ignores the context in which he said this and the fact he was not advocating for but instructing against such an orientation. Likewise the court's interpretation has been deceptive and ignored the context in which and the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms was given.
It seems clear to you but the vast majority of constitutional scholars and the supreme court disagree. If you study the language of the times it is clear that the framers intended military power to rest with the people and not just with a central government. Several of the framers flat out say this in other writings. It's fine that you disagree, just know that your opinion is not shared by most people who have studied the issue intently.
