|
01/17/2002, 02:02 PM
#448
Originally posted by Rob
Are you sure about this interpretation? Can you cite respected constitution scholars on this? (I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm really curious!) I always thought there was an "of" implied, not an "and", i.e. "a well regulated militia of the people being necessary...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Personally I think that there was an extraneous comma or two there. "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."
Secondly, how much do you think NRA and gun ownership rights folks base their beliefs on the need to ensure the goals of the 2nd amendment are met? And what are those goals?
Simple: 'the security of a free state'. Keep in mind that this was both from external _and_ internal threats. Here are a couple of quotes:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennyslvania, 1759
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm no expert, but to me a militia would be first and foremost for defense against external threats (foreign armies of colonial powers for example), and second for maintaining civil order.
No, those are the duty of the government. Defense of our borders is one of the few enumerated powers of GovCo.
Not for hunting or as a military check/balance of power against abuses by an over-reaching federal government.
Then you need to read a bit more history. Try the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to get an idea of the vibe in the country at the time.
I personally think the (official) armed forces do a pretty decent job overall of protecting us from external threats.
They do for most routine matters, but there are occasions where the general populace must be relied on to suplement their numbers.
There's a lot more room for improvement with respect to the police, especially in certain densly-populated urban areas, but I'm pretty sure that better regulation (more oversight) of controversial police departments makes more sense than simply arming the public (if trained police officers who have to endure scrutiny and review of their actions can occasionally make terrible life-ending mistakes with firearms, why do we think unregulated use of firearms by untrained civilians will be better?)
Ever consider that's why the founders wanted the people to have guns and militias? They _wanted_ the general populace to be trained.
I'm not saying I'm against gun ownership, but I was interested in the foundation of the NRA's arguments in the 2nd amendment (versus a more general moral/ethical argument about the natural law right to protect oneself and one's family...)
Therein lies the rub. Prior to the 1980s, the NRA's role was _drastically_ different than today. Its role was providing hunter and firearms safety classes and marksmanship training to train people how to use weapons safely and properly. It has historically had a _very_ close working relationship with law enforcement (and still does for the most part from what I understand at least on a local level).
I actually think it would be OK to have a high percentage of gun ownership *IF* we had some way to ensure people were reasonably well trained and taking responsible precautions to prevent accidents.
Ironically, that's what the NRA was doing before the anti-gun folks made them into what they are today.
I'm not sure why citizens have to have high-powered and/or assault weapons, though, unless the idea is that it's their right to take up arms against (what they think is) a corrupt or overpowered central/federal government stepping on their rights (I guess the separatist militias would cite the Declaration of Independence not the 2nd amendment though.)
Actually, there are several arguments that could be made. One would be to put them on equal footing with federal forces and other potential tyrants. The second would be that should they be called up to help defend their country, they'll already have experience and proficiency with the weapons (or some simililar to those) they'll be using.
What do people think about handguns that only work if you have authorized fingerprints or something like that?
Sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe we should do like Cuba and ship all of our criminals to other countries who think they know better how to handle them.
|
|
|