Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective) [View all]jmg257
(11,996 posts)Especially since the people supplied their own. I have no doubt how important arms were to individuals..'savages, wild beasts, defence, fowling'.
I wouldn't expect the members of congess, the vice president, the people in state govts, and everyone else exempt from militia duty would give up their guns.
BUT I also can not ignore that the intent of the 2nd was to secure the people's role in the militias. I can not ignore all the debates that clearly show what their concern was, and it wasnt self-defense, or hunting, or ???. I cannot ignore the preamble that gives the reason for the restriction that follows.
I think it a fact that without the new militia powers going to congress, there would be no 2nd amendment.
All These facts support the "theory" of the rkba in the 2nd referring to mlitia service. Was it exclusive? Damn if I know. When the rights of the people are at stake, more is typically better. And I enjoy the right as much as anyone, probably more then most.
But I also cannot ignore the govt interest in restricting them, as has been done numerous times. I cannot ignore the obsolete nature of the primary purpose of the 2nd, securing the militias that no longer exist, or securing a role of the people that no longer is necessary. I cannot ignore that we the people cannot freely purchase the very guns we should all have for miliia duty. That we have no duty to muster, or in any way become regulated. That we, the people created the National Guard, and support huge standing armies.
So the theory is valid, the courts have ruled, the people have and will decide. So as mentioned already, nothing needs to change.
What I do with others opinions that might be contrary to mine?