|
Post by juju on Jun 16, 2016 8:43:16 GMT
Obviously all the arguments for gun ownership rest on this, but what exactly is meant by a 'well regulated militia'?
And if this was originally meant to be as an alternative to a standing army, what does that mean now since the US *does* have a standing army?
Also, I've heard arguments that gun ownership is important to deter a tyrannical government. But presumably a tyrannical government would have the military on their side, no? The same military that gun owning people currently revere? (Someone only has to claim to be a 'vet' and that seems to trump every argument, from what I can gather). So whose side are the army seen as being on?
It's all a bit confusing...
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 16, 2016 10:08:20 GMT
I'm also keen to understand "well regulated", because what is happening in America and what the NRA seems to advocate is complete lack of regulation.
The difference between militia and the US army is clear enough though - it was about the right of states to defend themselves against the tyranny of federal government. That detail seems to be ignored nowadays though.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jun 16, 2016 10:11:18 GMT
I don't think NRA and all the gun-lovers are governed by logic. (And not by empathy either.)
They need guns (incl. semi-automatic ones) to defend themselves. Against criminals and against the government. Though the military still have better weapons. But the law is from 18th century and some still think like they live in the 18th century. It is like religion, you just don't question but believe.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 16, 2016 12:19:19 GMT
An American friend of mine is visiting his daughter in the UK and says he's been asked if he owns a gun and whether he's brought it with him! "You must be joking," he replied
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jun 16, 2016 14:56:11 GMT
The difference between militia and the US army is clear enough though - it was about the right of states to defend themselves against the tyranny of federal government. That detail seems to be ignored nowadays though. So in other words, those worried about tyranny have guns to fight against the army. The same army they currently revere. Who have much bigger guns. And rocket launchers. And very big bombs. Nope, still don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 16, 2016 15:02:33 GMT
I don't get it either. The second amendment was written a very long time ago and concerned an entirely different situation. It was NOT meant to allow inbred rednecks to barricade themselves in their shacks with assault weapons and threaten to shoot anyone who attempted to make them pay taxes.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 16, 2016 15:38:00 GMT
Yes, what the second amendment provides for or protects against is not what gun fanatics want it to mean today.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jun 19, 2016 15:03:19 GMT
I don't get it either. The second amendment was written a very long time ago and concerned an entirely different situation. It was NOT meant to allow inbred rednecks to barricade themselves in their shacks with assault weapons and threaten to shoot anyone who attempted to make them pay taxes. Lol. I have known rednecks and they are not intelligent. So I'm trying to put how crazy disorganized the idea is for Chester and his friends. But at any rate if they go that far they need to go to a looney bin.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 30, 2016 2:58:55 GMT
Well...the wiki piece is an acceptable overview and reviews the precedents in English common law for firearm ownership. My view is that the present situation is, as it always seems to be, a matter of commerce and profit which animates the gun cultists. The NRA is basically the mouthpiece and tactician for the weapons and ammunition manufacturers. They have leaned on a perverse 'reinterpretation' of the amendment language by 'proof-texting' to emphasize the portion they want the public to see and remember...which is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which they take to mean that they can obtain any arms they want, keep them in their possession and bear them all the time. This ignores the 'well-regulated militia', which I take to mean that every bearer of arms can be expected to respond to a public muster, be trained as a unit, know how to safely and effectively use and maintain one's weapon, know one's place in the unit and command structure, and when mustered reports to the community arsenal to receive ammunition (bullets, powder and flint, which were kept where they could expect to be reliably dry when needed). It needs to be pointed out that the nation has always had a 'professional army' other than the militia, which were organized on a state level. The Continental Army was raised nationally...and in the day, it was difficult to keep continental soldiers on task, much less the militiamen, who tended to disappear when planting and harvest times came 'round. Note that the weaponry which was leading edge at the time the amendment was ratified was actual rifling in long guns. That was the advance over smooth-bore blunderbuss like long guns. They were still loading the powder charge and bullet with a tamper down the muzzle of the weapon, setting the lock and priming charge in the pan with more powder before taking aim....distinctly not 10-15 rounds per second like modern automatic assault weapons. Ignoring these realities of the amendment language has been accomplished by buying Congresscritters (aka 'graft and corruption') and paying a lot of asshole attorneys a lot of money over a lot of time to obfuscate the whole damned thing while gun makers sell more guns each time the public is stampeded into fear buying by the latest in firearms travesties. The gun lobby has figured out a way to make the worst forking aspect of their product sell more product. Brainwash the consumers and instill fear in the public. And...There's the whole 'life imitating art' thing, too. After multiple decades of seeing repeated open shoot-outs, first as television dramatizations, then as 'news reports', mass violence has become a 'normal' ongoing event in the American scene. It's like the American public has been inured to mass violence by the media in which it has been immersed. Once again....it's all in the interpretation. The NRA versus a lot of others, included retired and present Supreme Court justices. The NRA has a lot more money to throw at it.
|
|