Historical insight

[unixronin]

"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."

The arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment are near-continuous, even since DC v. Heller.  Possibly the three most oft-repeated arguments invoked to weaken it are attempts to narrowly define the meaning of "arms", attempts to argue that "the People" actually means "the States" when used in the Second Amendment, and arguments that the prefatory militia clause, rather than being explanatory, is rather a condition, and that it is no longer true.

To get a clearer insight on this last, we can shortcut much argument by simply considering the original draft form of the relevant passage in the Bill of Rights recommended by the Virginia Ratifying Convention, in June 1778:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

It's pretty clear from reading this that the keep-and-bear clause stands on its own, and that rather than being a necessary condition for it, the militia clause is actually a benefit enabled by it.  The draft then goes on to explain why a citizen militia is felt to be superior, in time of peace, to a standing army, but recognizes that this is not always possible by amending the qualifier "as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit".  No such qualifier — indeed, no qualifier whatsoever — is amended to the keep-and-bear clause.

Any questions?

Comments

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the longer version makes it even clearer that the framers' intent was for the military to be a citizen army, made possible because each citizen would be armed and trained to use those arms.

I think that would be an excellent idea for our defense forces. (Although it would not replace the standing professional army, necessary for overseas ventures.)

I have long thought that the necessary requirement for owning a firearm should be proper, rigorous, military-grade training.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

I must disagree. I don't wish to learn to shoot a firearm with a group of people. I'm much happier learning to be a lone shooter instead of having to be hyper aware of the people around me or who are also shooting.

Thank God we no longer fight battles with ranks of riflemen.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I don't think shooting in a formation is necessary! What is necessary, and what too many people never get, is thorough training for safety and accuracy.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

personally, i feel that most people should be required to take a mandatory course, with refreshers to get a driving license.

such a thing is PRACTICALLY but not always usual for motorcycles.

it's not unreasonable to want people to take a course for guns either, on the other hand, i don't think raising the bar so high as to exclude people is smart either. on the gripping hand, encouraging more people to own, and provide a community attitude that, yes, it's okay to want a big studly "scary black rifle"... and maybe even get a tax break like in VT :)

#

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There's nothing unreasonable about training. What's unreasonable is making every possible effort to shut down as much as possible of the available training (school and college shooting clubs, ROTC ranges, etc) and then complaining that people shouldn't be trusted with firearms because they don't have any training.

[luxobscura.livejournal.com]

It works pretty well for places like Switzerland.

Of course, they're not as retarded as we are, so it's probably safer.