Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla
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.
You do see the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Or did you ever bother to read that?
|
I always thought this referred to "the people" at the time they lived in villages and read by oil lamps... you know, the colonies.
The first part of the sentence refers to a "well regulated militia" - of which (as far as I know) most gun owners are not a part of.
The amendment, as blurry as it seems now, more accurately applied to life in the new world as it was back when it was written.
The world is a little more complicated now.
At its simplest, I would see a "well regulated militia" sort of like a volunteer fire department - where members of the community or communities joined together in case a (foreign king, forest fire, or whatever) ever threatened the free State.
Being "well regulated" would mean that those who are part of the "Militia" would be allowed to have guns and be registered and ready to call in case of emergency.
I would assume that the rest of the community would not be necessarily part of the "regulated" militia.
So does the amendment mean only members of the regulated militia have the right to bear arms?
Or does the amendment imply anyone can bear arms in case someone wants to join in the defense effort?
Technically it would seem only members of the Militia would need to be regulated, and the people of the community who are not part of it would be unregulated.
When you're in the militia, or the army, locally or overseas, your guns and ordinance are stored, regulated, controlled.
Now doesn't the National Guard fall under the definition of "well regulated militia"? They're non-regular weekend soldiers available in the event of a situation, like a volunteer fire department.
The "militia" definition shouldn't be applied to the modern world any more, since there really isn't a feasible scenario that would require you and everybody in the 'hood to jump to the defense of the free state.
In a way, since the National Guard is so embedded or coupled with the regular military establishment, they can't really count as a defense against the government, should it decide to turn against the people.
So let's just say every citizen is potentially a member of the militia, or already a part by benefit of being a citizen, one of "the people".
Being one of the people and thus an ad hoc member of the militia, shouldn't they be "well regulated"? Shouldn't their weapons and capacity be registered, remembered and rendered as per their benefit to a defense initiative?
A well-regulated defense can't be deployed without knowing an inventory of resources, or the people's abilities and beneficial contribution to a national resistance, can it?
:D