russ_watters said:
Re, the 2nd Amendment: Its horribly, horribly written, perhaps on purpose. My interpretation is "a well regulated militia" is the National Guard, the modern incarnation of the militias that really were just farmers with personal guns. "The right to bear arms," is far from absolute, and needs to be heavily restricted.
In the context of the times the amendment was written, the 'Regulars' were trained, professional soldiers.
Why the use of that word 'regular' to refer to trained, professional soldiers, who were distinguished from plain militia by the fact that they were 'regulars?' Why the use of that same word to refer to militia in the 2nd Amendment?
The reason was not just applicable to colonial times; the reason was cited as a factor in America's ability to mobilize for WWII. The ability to quickly train just plain folks and turn them into Regulars when the security of a free nation requires it is enhanced when just plain folks show up already familiar with arms, ie, well regulated militia, as opposed to regulars, which well regulated militia might become upon professional military training in service to the nation.
Therefore, 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.
Since the Articles already grant power to the federal government to federalize the militia when needed, and notwithstanding Massachusetts and Connecticuts once polite refusal(War of 1812)to federalize their militia, to believe that the 2nd Amendment applied to collective arming of militia only would be tantamount to claiming that 10% of the Bill of Rights was dedicated to forbidding the government from infringing the right to arm itself.
ie, an absurdity in the context of a 'constitution.'
The leading dependent clause is simply an enumeration of a benefit to the security of a free state which follows from not infringing a pre-existing right of the people. It is, in a sense, a justification to the gun grabbers of the day for why it is not a good thing to wax totalitarian.
Lets acknowledge that neither the 1st Amendment nor 2nd AMendment is absolute; just as we do not have the right to run into a theatre and scream 'FIRE,' nor do we have the right to run into a theatre and 'FIRE.' Well, no ****. But, does pointing out that not even the NRA advocates that we should have a right to run into a theatre and 'FIRE' support a claim that citizens should have half of their vocal cords removed, because anyone of us might run into a theatre and yell 'FIRE?'
After all, we can understand each other perfectly well when we whisper to each other, and there is always the state licensed bullhorns that only the police and fire department trained operators should have, in case of a societal emergency.
