2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 1
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.
.
Does this amendment target the individual states, the Feds, or the citizen?
The purpose of this amendment and why it was proposed is open to interpretation. No-one is living who was around when it was written. It is perhaps deliberately vague - somewhat like The Bible or any religious book.
Does this amendment target the individual states, the Feds, or the citizen?
The purpose of this amendment and why it was proposed is open to interpretation. No-one is living who was around when it was written. It is perhaps deliberately vague - somewhat like The Bible or any religious book.
One predominant thought is that it was intended to allow citizens of individual states to fight a tyrannical Federal government. Does "militia" mean only groups such as armies and national guards have the right to bear the arms or does each individual have this right either for personal protection or to form their own "militias?"
Another issue is whether the original intent was to prevent the Feds from banning or granting the right to bear arms. Many think it was to permit only the States to grant or restrict this right.
Looking at other countries it seems to make sense that the most powerful army should be a national one if it is the country that needs defending. National governments will generally have the most funding, international contacts, and be most aware of world events. In fact many other countries do not have provincial or state militias, just police forces to enforce municipal, state, and federal laws.
The notion of having a standing army complete with weapons at home might have had merit long ago but with today's communications and satellites it is hard to imagine a surprise attack on the USA. Having guns at home as a national defense strategy to counter such an attack is a stretch.
The idea of entrenching the right to form discreet militias precisely to overthrow their own national government seems contrary to any notion of a nation. That's like giving cigarettes to people but asking them not to light them. Similarly if the idea was that one state might want to go to war with another, what kind of nation is that?
Having the right to personal protection with a gun has some merit given the American gun culture mentioned in the first article. However protection as in your person and family does not justify weapons of war at home or on the streets.
I will return to these topics in my final post where some suggestions will be offered and solicited. This was just some food for thought.
The next in this series will address types of weaponry.
Another issue is whether the original intent was to prevent the Feds from banning or granting the right to bear arms. Many think it was to permit only the States to grant or restrict this right.
Looking at other countries it seems to make sense that the most powerful army should be a national one if it is the country that needs defending. National governments will generally have the most funding, international contacts, and be most aware of world events. In fact many other countries do not have provincial or state militias, just police forces to enforce municipal, state, and federal laws.
The notion of having a standing army complete with weapons at home might have had merit long ago but with today's communications and satellites it is hard to imagine a surprise attack on the USA. Having guns at home as a national defense strategy to counter such an attack is a stretch.
The idea of entrenching the right to form discreet militias precisely to overthrow their own national government seems contrary to any notion of a nation. That's like giving cigarettes to people but asking them not to light them. Similarly if the idea was that one state might want to go to war with another, what kind of nation is that?
Having the right to personal protection with a gun has some merit given the American gun culture mentioned in the first article. However protection as in your person and family does not justify weapons of war at home or on the streets.
I will return to these topics in my final post where some suggestions will be offered and solicited. This was just some food for thought.
The next in this series will address types of weaponry.
#thebrewsterblock
No comments:
Post a Comment