General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Don't mean to hit your with a ton of questions, don't feel compelled to address them all but you got me going ...
You suggest the RKBA includes obvious arms uses at the time on the frontier - hunting, repelling wild animals and other threats. Does the current absence of those wild animal threats in most parts of the country obviate that aspect, and limit the obviousness to hunting - for food not sport? If we replace obvious frontier threats with modern non-rural threats that still require a gun according to many, are those needs so obvious? Is Stand Your Ground an appropriate articulation of the evolving 'obvious' the founders intended?
So, BECAUSE the militia is necessary suggests the government cannot infringe on the militia because the founders believe a free state needs a militia. Essentially, a free state needs a populace that is proficient with weapons upon which the government can call to form a militia "if/when/where". Yes?
A miliitia formed in order to 'put down inserruections, repel invasions' etc (Article1Sec8)? A populace whom, when called upon, will need a minimum of training. This 'ready force' is what is necessary for a free state? Does the militia have another purpose?
"The 'militia clause' is justificatory." Justifying if not the militia, then what - the RKBA? In that case, why the comma? Wouldn't "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" have been clearer that they intended no infringement on that right specifically? Without the comma, the argument can be made that the RIGHT is the subject, the two phrases before it clauses. As written, Militia appears to be the subject of the sentence, the free state and RKBA phrases as the clauses.
'A well regulated militia ... shall not be infringed' does restrict the government. It is restricting govt from abolishing or infringing upon the militia. This is consistent with the Bill of Rights, no authorizing rights involved. If it restricts govt from abolishing the RKBA, then why mention the militia at all? Then why the comma?
That non-comma version appears to be the interpretation that is currently applied in practice. If the militia clause is justficatory, is the existence of the militia still justified in today's society that has no need of the militia, and if not, doesn't that obviate the justification for the RKBA?