In libertarian circles (and helped along by the NRA), the well regulated militia part has been retconned into meaning pretty much any citizen with a gun = militia; and well regulated = target practice, tactical drills, etc. That's totally what Madison et al. meant, right? /s
In libertarian circles (and helped along by the NRA), the well regulated militia part has been retconned into meaning pretty much any citizen with a gun = militia; and well regulated = target practice, tactical drills, etc. That's totally what Madison et al. meant, right? /s
This is a cause invented and promoted by gun manufacturers. It will take a campaign like that for stopping smoking in order for people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns.
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?
It's certainly true that most people killed by guns did not themselves have guns, at the time. It does not follow that *having* a gun makes you *less* likely to be killed, when a shooting situation occurs. There are a few cases of successful "return fire," to be sure. Once in a while, a civilian just carrying his gun while out in the community *is* the hero, but that's not the same thing as being safer for having the gun. In the chaos of an unplanned public gunfight among amateurs, sometimes the armed civilian just makes himself the priority target, to the original shooter, or to other would-be heroes, or to arriving police. Sometimes he adds to the carnage, shooting the wrong people.
No question. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing of pointing out how readily the other side of the debate would snatch up such a line. As you point out, the reality is much more complicated.
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
In libertarian circles (and helped along by the NRA), the well regulated militia part has been retconned into meaning pretty much any citizen with a gun = militia; and well regulated = target practice, tactical drills, etc. That's totally what Madison et al. meant, right? /s
This is a cause invented and promoted by gun manufacturers. It will take a campaign like that for stopping smoking in order for people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns.
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?
"people to realize people with guns usually kill people without guns."
Plenty of gun owners would tell you that they realize this quite well.
It's certainly true that most people killed by guns did not themselves have guns, at the time. It does not follow that *having* a gun makes you *less* likely to be killed, when a shooting situation occurs. There are a few cases of successful "return fire," to be sure. Once in a while, a civilian just carrying his gun while out in the community *is* the hero, but that's not the same thing as being safer for having the gun. In the chaos of an unplanned public gunfight among amateurs, sometimes the armed civilian just makes himself the priority target, to the original shooter, or to other would-be heroes, or to arriving police. Sometimes he adds to the carnage, shooting the wrong people.
No question. I was just doing the devil's advocate thing of pointing out how readily the other side of the debate would snatch up such a line. As you point out, the reality is much more complicated.
Or people with guns kill themselves, and men accomplish it at an alarming rate.
That's true too; I forgot to mention that piece of it. Thank you for doing it.
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
Yeah, it's messy and has been since back then... at least the third amendment is more clear?
Neither of us has even mentioned the advances in firearms tech and materials, etc.
Or the creation of police forces and the end of the frontier.