The well regulated militia clause is because the founders expressly intended to avoid a large standing army and pervasive law enforcement presence. Thus, the means available for defense was a populace who could be called to form militias when they were needed.
Nearly everything about that clause has changed.
The expressed right of the people to bear arms has not, and I support it, along with all of the rights, freedoms and responsibilities, both those enumerated and those that are "traditional" or "implied", for everyone.
The right to bear arms refers to arms, not armaments. Arms were understood to mean weapons that the people of the day (any day... Including ours...) might normally have carried. That has been defined by the supreme court in ine case to include shotguns over a certain length, and not to include those under that length. Where so-called assault rifles fit into that is probably as yet unclear, and it is poignant that neither side has pushed the question to the Supreme Court. It does not mean cannon, mortars, tanks or fighter planes with the weapons systems intact.
The oft stated argument that the 2nd was to enable the populace to control teh tyranny of the government has little actual historical support, and is completely irrelevant now that the government at all levels possesses overwhelming superiority in force.
Y'all can look that all up yourselves. I suggest staying away from openly political sources such as the NRA, but it nearly all comes from my reading of pro gun, pro 2nd Amendment and pro freedom organizations, along with my old copy of The Heritage Foundation Guide To The Constitution. The old one, before they too went overtly political.
Oddly, the biggest supporters of the unconstitutional reality of our present day police state and massive standing army are the same people who are most vocal about the 2nd, their right to defend themselves against the very same militarized government, and a strict intrepretation of the constitution (when it suits them...) while gladly supportimg measures that compromise other law-abiding citizens rights and freedoms in the name of either "public safety" or "morality".
Those false "conservatives" thereby earn every bit of the derision that they receive.
ALL of everyone's rights and freedoms are just as important as ANY of anyone's.
That is a true conservative value, and one that the so-called "conservatives" of the Modern GOP has abandoned due to its unholy alliance with the religious right.
Nearly everything about that clause has changed.
The expressed right of the people to bear arms has not, and I support it, along with all of the rights, freedoms and responsibilities, both those enumerated and those that are "traditional" or "implied", for everyone.
The right to bear arms refers to arms, not armaments. Arms were understood to mean weapons that the people of the day (any day... Including ours...) might normally have carried. That has been defined by the supreme court in ine case to include shotguns over a certain length, and not to include those under that length. Where so-called assault rifles fit into that is probably as yet unclear, and it is poignant that neither side has pushed the question to the Supreme Court. It does not mean cannon, mortars, tanks or fighter planes with the weapons systems intact.
The oft stated argument that the 2nd was to enable the populace to control teh tyranny of the government has little actual historical support, and is completely irrelevant now that the government at all levels possesses overwhelming superiority in force.
Y'all can look that all up yourselves. I suggest staying away from openly political sources such as the NRA, but it nearly all comes from my reading of pro gun, pro 2nd Amendment and pro freedom organizations, along with my old copy of The Heritage Foundation Guide To The Constitution. The old one, before they too went overtly political.
Oddly, the biggest supporters of the unconstitutional reality of our present day police state and massive standing army are the same people who are most vocal about the 2nd, their right to defend themselves against the very same militarized government, and a strict intrepretation of the constitution (when it suits them...) while gladly supportimg measures that compromise other law-abiding citizens rights and freedoms in the name of either "public safety" or "morality".
Those false "conservatives" thereby earn every bit of the derision that they receive.
ALL of everyone's rights and freedoms are just as important as ANY of anyone's.
That is a true conservative value, and one that the so-called "conservatives" of the Modern GOP has abandoned due to its unholy alliance with the religious right.
