This has been nursing within the head for some time...just wanted to get some feedback...
I think the second amendment is vastly misinterpreted by most people in this country. It's specifically focused on well-regulated militias. My interp. is that it's intended to preserve individual rights by providing state and lower governments the ability to deter oppressive measures by the both the federal government and any internal threats to life and liberty which may arise.
This means 1) military weapons and 2) control/organization by, and loyalty to, a local governmental entity. Even in revolutionary times, there was a sharp distinction between battefield weapons and your average rifle. Smoothbore muskets were relatively useless for individuals...they were inaccurate, but fast loading, and effective only en masse. Not the kind of weapon you needed for hunting or home defense, which would be filled by a rifle (which had very limited military application...), shotgun, or possibly a pistol, depending on needs.
So, basically, I think the second amendment is simply inapplicable to the arguments about gun control in this country. It's got nothing to do with handguns, concealed carry, what weapons citizens can own, etc. It's not a matter of anything but the scope of the amendment...this isn't a critique of Americans and what guns they can or should have. I just don't see it as an issue covered by the scope of the second amendment, leaving it open for regulation by the federal (not the people to regulate it, IMHO) and state/local governments (a more reasonable entity to regulate these issues).
I do think the amendment sets the stage for states and local groups to have some sort of military reserve force, which is most closely filled by the national guard in our current organization. It's not a truly independent state militia, but no state seems to have the desire (or probably the cash) to front such an organization. The fact that the states haven't wanted or created a militia is no reason to misinterpret the 2nd amendment to cover an individual's right to have a gun for any reason other than as a member of a militia (which might or may not, according to its own regulations, allow members to keep military weapons in their homes). In short, the 2nd amendment isn't a catch-all right to have guns. It's a specific right for a specific purpose.
So while I know what I've said is total anathema to the NRA folks, I just wanted to open a discussion in the name of internet tirades. I'm by no means anti-gun; I'm just a stickler with my legal logic. Have at it...
MD
I think the second amendment is vastly misinterpreted by most people in this country. It's specifically focused on well-regulated militias. My interp. is that it's intended to preserve individual rights by providing state and lower governments the ability to deter oppressive measures by the both the federal government and any internal threats to life and liberty which may arise.
This means 1) military weapons and 2) control/organization by, and loyalty to, a local governmental entity. Even in revolutionary times, there was a sharp distinction between battefield weapons and your average rifle. Smoothbore muskets were relatively useless for individuals...they were inaccurate, but fast loading, and effective only en masse. Not the kind of weapon you needed for hunting or home defense, which would be filled by a rifle (which had very limited military application...), shotgun, or possibly a pistol, depending on needs.
So, basically, I think the second amendment is simply inapplicable to the arguments about gun control in this country. It's got nothing to do with handguns, concealed carry, what weapons citizens can own, etc. It's not a matter of anything but the scope of the amendment...this isn't a critique of Americans and what guns they can or should have. I just don't see it as an issue covered by the scope of the second amendment, leaving it open for regulation by the federal (not the people to regulate it, IMHO) and state/local governments (a more reasonable entity to regulate these issues).
I do think the amendment sets the stage for states and local groups to have some sort of military reserve force, which is most closely filled by the national guard in our current organization. It's not a truly independent state militia, but no state seems to have the desire (or probably the cash) to front such an organization. The fact that the states haven't wanted or created a militia is no reason to misinterpret the 2nd amendment to cover an individual's right to have a gun for any reason other than as a member of a militia (which might or may not, according to its own regulations, allow members to keep military weapons in their homes). In short, the 2nd amendment isn't a catch-all right to have guns. It's a specific right for a specific purpose.
So while I know what I've said is total anathema to the NRA folks, I just wanted to open a discussion in the name of internet tirades. I'm by no means anti-gun; I'm just a stickler with my legal logic. Have at it...
MD