The amendment only makes sense as an individual right.
Not to me, for then there is no reason for the first phrase.
I just explained to you a possible explanation:
The first phrase would be saying that because the State is going to have a well-regulated Militia, then the People need to have arms too. Did you watch the < 1 min. video I linked to?
Also, all of the Bill of Rights limits the State's power in favor of the individual. That's the whole point of it. It wouldn't make sense for this one amendment to be granting power to the State instead of the individual.
Thirdly, SCOTUS has ruled that it does refer to an individual right.
What I see is the historical need to get the southern states to approve the constitution, and to do this that they had to allow the existing militias, that were used in the south to oppress the slaves, to continue to operate.
It was influenced by the English Bill of Rights that has practically the same thing in it:
"no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law"
That was identifying a Natural Right that men have, as opposed to a legal right that the kind's Divine Right could grant. In the same vein, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the legal right to arms, it affirms that it is a natural right a command not to infringe it.
Also, the preamble states the purpose:
quote:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
They're further
restrictive clauses to prevent abuse of power of the State. It doesn't make sense to have one of them talking about maintaining the power to the State.
... And there's no need to amend the constitution in order for the State to arm the Militia.
Never said there was. Don't know where this red herring comes from, but the constitution is very clear about congress providing arms for the various state militias.
Right, the constitution already provides a means for arming the militia. There's no reason to amend it for that to happen. It'd be a completely unnecessary amendment if it wasn't referring to an individual's rights.
Back when the constitution was written there was not much difference between army rifles and hunting rifles, today there is a significant difference.
What differences are you calling significant?
Thus we can logically draw a line (or at least a grey area) between military arms and individual arms. We can look at the uses of guns by individuals when the constitution was written and ensure that those uses are still provided.
A person that has a handgun for self defense, a rifle for hunting, and a rifle for target shooting has arms.
A person with a bazooka is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes.
Likewise a person with a machine gun is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes
Bazookas and machine guns are already regulated by the National Firearms Act.
The only real question is where that line is drawn.
The line has already been drawn.
And when interpreting amendments, SCOTUS uses the "normal usage at the point in time" to figure out what it applies to. The First Amendment applies to the Internet even thought it is something that was impossible to imagine when the BoR was written.
Bigger and better guns is a no-brainer. A good measure, in my personal opinoin, of what guns are normal usage at the time is whatever the cops are using for their day-to-day activities. Cops are non-military civilians. They use handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. That's what the people should have the right to keep as well.
According to wiki, the founders' purposes of having individuals have the freedom to be armed were:
"enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;"
As society becomes more dense and concentrated in cities it is rational that more restrictions on socially acceptable behavior arise, including the use of guns.
The population in the US has doubled since I was in High School, and will likely double again in less time. This causes increased social conflict, and guns are not a way to resolve social conflict.
Most of the violent crime happens in densly populated areas. Its not the total popluation that causes the crime rate increase, its the density.
So we draw the line at weapons that can be loaded by quick change clips\magazines and we draw the line at ammunition that is appropriate for hunting.
Magazine change-time isn't really an issue. How do you determine what ammo is appropriate for hunting? How can you write legislation that specifies some kind of ammo, when there's
so much variety out there?
And we say that anyone that wants to train with and use the more military style weapons can join the National Guard or the armed forces.
That's already the way things are.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
