4 ms·

> This pretty clearly carries the implication that being "well-regulated" is more than just well-equipped. In that context, it seems that to the writer, "well-

by cr0sh 7y ago

> This pretty clearly carries the implication that being "well-regulated" is more than just well-equipped. In that context, it seems that to the writer, "well-regulated" meant trained, likely continuous training kept up at somewhat regular intervals (in how to use their weapon, and how to care for it so that it is ready to use), and that they should keep their knowledge up ("evolutions") on more recent advances in weaponry so that they have some idea how to care and use those as well. > "...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Today, there are many people who are showing that they cannot be trusted with arms. They use them instead of reason, they use them for illegal purposes, they use them as toys, they don't take regular training to understand them, they - in short - don't act like militiamen should act. They certainly don't seemingly act "well-regulated". Are these the kind of citizens the Framers - and perhaps the Federalist papers - had in mind to keep and bear arms?

andrewla 7y ago
So my understanding of it was that the framers were generally tepid about the idea of standing armies, especially standing armies managed by the federal government. They wanted instead the armies to consist of militias organized by the states, and the command structure to ultimately roll up to the Commander-in-Chief. The expectation was varied over who would arm the militias -- Congress, the states, or the people bringing their own weapons. To preserve the possibility of the last option, they wrote the second amendment so that when people went to join the militia, they would already have their own guns (and other armaments, like cannon, horses, etc.) that they could bring along. This involves a whole bevy of unstated assumptions about firearm ownership based on the experience fighting the British. So if I were to rephrase the amendment to remove the brevity, I think it would read something like this: "In order that the states may raise and maintain a militia that is well-organized and trained, people must own and be prepared to bear their own personal armament in service of that militia, and therefore Congress may not forbid people from owning arms and by doing so prevent the states from raising militias outside of Congress's authority." So I personally feel that this sentiment, while noble for the time, is outdated and no longer applicable, especially since the remnants of state militias are insignificant compared to the deployed power of the federal standing army, and we don't expect that to change. But it is what it is, and we have a process already for modifying the constitution when its dictates are no longer applicable, as we did with slavery, as we did with the voting age, as we did with income taxes. We should be using the power of amending the constitution to update it to reflect the reality of firearm ownership in the present time. I guess the one thing if you accept my interpretation of the amendment that might be open to interpretation is that the states could arguably have the power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit; the debate was mostly federal vs. state rather than government vs. individual, even if in the end it is expressed as an individual right that enforces the state's right.

by cr0sh 7y ago

andrewla 7y ago

So my understanding of it was that the framers were generally tepid about the idea of standing armies, especially standing armies managed by the federal government. They wanted instead the armies to consist of militias organized by the states, and the command structure to ultimately roll up to the Commander-in-Chief. The expectation was varied over who would arm the militias -- Congress, the states, or the people bringing their own weapons. To preserve the possibility of the last option, they wrote the second amendment so that when people went to join the militia, they would already have their own guns (and other armaments, like cannon, horses, etc.) that they could bring along. This involves a whole bevy of unstated assumptions about firearm ownership based on the experience fighting the British. So if I were to rephrase the amendment to remove the brevity, I think it would read something like this: "In order that the states may raise and maintain a militia that is well-organized and trained, people must own and be prepared to bear their own personal armament in service of that militia, and therefore Congress may not forbid people from owning arms and by doing so prevent the states from raising militias outside of Congress's authority." So I personally feel that this sentiment, while noble for the time, is outdated and no longer applicable, especially since the remnants of state militias are insignificant compared to the deployed power of the federal standing army, and we don't expect that to change. But it is what it is, and we have a process already for modifying the constitution when its dictates are no longer applicable, as we did with slavery, as we did with the voting age, as we did with income taxes. We should be using the power of amending the constitution to update it to reflect the reality of firearm ownership in the present time. I guess the one thing if you accept my interpretation of the amendment that might be open to interpretation is that the states could arguably have the power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit; the debate was mostly federal vs. state rather than government vs. individual, even if in the end it is expressed as an individual right that enforces the state's right.