The "original intent" appears to be to short circuit the need for large standing armies (and thus also limiting federal power). However, events over the last 200 years have overtaken this original intent in at least two ways: (1) we do, in fact, have an enormous standing army, and (2) weapons technology has evolved, literally, several orders of magnitude past what was available to humans in the 18th century.
The author below concludes that all this means we ought to re-think what the point of it all really is, since armies, govt and weapons are now utterly different, and going back to how it was in the late 1700s isn't going to happen.
I agree we'd all benefit from some kind of national "first principles" re-think of the whole thing, but I also want a pony. I don't perceive much political or public will to change any policies relating to guns, public safety, or mental health, and therefore I expect the U.S. to continue having the highest rate of gun related deaths in the developed world.
In any case, the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or personal protection against common criminals. The right to bear arms was seen as a way to check the power of the federal government and to provide an alternative to standing armies. Since bearing arms in today's America cannot substitute for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, nor can it realistically prevent the federal government from doing almost anything it wants to do, the entire legitimate rationale for the 2nd Amendment has been obliterated.
It makes little sense to argue that we have the right to hunt and protect our property, and only need arms suitable for those tasks. Nor does it make sense to argue that we must be as well-armed as the Air Force so that we may keep tyranny at bay.
We seek a cut-off point between the musket and an ICBM where we might uphold the right to bear arms, honor the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and not act like insane people. But we can find no solution that can satisfy all three of those requirements.
The right to bear arms is indisputable. We just don't know what "arms" are, or why we should have the right to bear them.
...
What I know for sure is that we ought to have legislatures figure out why we have a right to bear arms, what "arms" are, and then decide how we can best protect the public safety. Talking about guns in the context of the 2nd Amendment is a disaster.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/7/23/2244/78611
12 replies
I agree with this guy, who I think partly agrees with you:
