7 ms·

Interpreting the Second Amendment in a sane way might be a start. Its wording seems clear to me: it establishes the need for a well-regulated militia as necess

Interpreting the Second Amendment in a sane way might be a start. Its wording seems clear to me: it establishes the need for a well-regulated militia as necessary to the security of the state, and grants the right to bear arms in that context. No aspect of the current situation is "well-regulated", nor are citizens, apart from a tiny number of fringe groups, organized into militias, and those that are could scarcely be called well-regulated. However, the current intpretation seems to be solely in terms of the end of that sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", with no context at all, and I think in a way that has a quite different meaning to what was intended. And yet, when you come down to it, the right of the people to bear arms is not absolute and is "infringed" all the time in that sense; you don't allow automatic weapons to be used without special licenses, you don't allow small children to buy guns, you don't allow felons to own them. So it seems that the right to bear arms is not totally unrestricted; it's just a matter of where you draw the line, and I think the first part of the 2A is clear about the context in which that line was meant to be drawn. I don't have any issue with an armed citizenry for national defense. Look at the Swiss; they are legally required to be armed, but in a highly regulated fashion, exactly so they have a citizen army ready to roll at any time. This seems to me to be what the founders had in mind, not a free-for-all in which guns are available to all in an uncontrolled way.

vlod 2mo ago
[dead]
rootusrootus 2mo ago
The founders didn't think we ought to have a standing army, either, and a militia of ordinary citizens was their answer. So I guess first we will need to bring back militias made from ordinary citizens, first, and then we can debate how that changes the applicability of the amendment. Not to mention the definition of well-regulated, which I think (hope) most people interested in this issue understand.
roryirvine 2mo ago
That's something that's always puzzled me. The impression I get as a non-American is that the "well-regulated militia" bit is more or less ignored - like you're meant to register with your local militia in order to have a gun, but no-one actually checks up on it? So why not tighten that up? Define a well-regulated militia as being one that requires, say, 200 hours of training to join, followed by a further 100 hours a year thereafter. Include annual proficiency testing and mental health assessments. Mandatory RFID tagging of all weapons. Minimum standards for safe gun and ammunition storage, backed up with regular inspections. Insurance for damage or injury to third parties. If you fail any of that, you're turfed out, and not allowed to have a gun. Really basic minimal steps like those would have a greater impact than any weird chemical weapons drone system, and if you make the militiae themselves pay for it, it would be essentially cost neutral.
- archagon 2mo ago
  It’s because the stupid amendment is ambiguous. “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.” Technically, it could be argued that the Militia clause is descriptive of one particular application of guns, not prescriptive of their every Constitutional use. But there has been endless disagreement on this subject.

vlod 2mo ago

[dead]

rootusrootus 2mo ago

The founders didn't think we ought to have a standing army, either, and a militia of ordinary citizens was their answer. So I guess first we will need to bring back militias made from ordinary citizens, first, and then we can debate how that changes the applicability of the amendment. Not to mention the definition of well-regulated, which I think (hope) most people interested in this issue understand.

roryirvine 2mo ago

That's something that's always puzzled me. The impression I get as a non-American is that the "well-regulated militia" bit is more or less ignored - like you're meant to register with your local militia in order to have a gun, but no-one actually checks up on it? So why not tighten that up? Define a well-regulated militia as being one that requires, say, 200 hours of training to join, followed by a further 100 hours a year thereafter. Include annual proficiency testing and mental health assessments. Mandatory RFID tagging of all weapons. Minimum standards for safe gun and ammunition storage, backed up with regular inspections. Insurance for damage or injury to third parties. If you fail any of that, you're turfed out, and not allowed to have a gun. Really basic minimal steps like those would have a greater impact than any weird chemical weapons drone system, and if you make the militiae themselves pay for it, it would be essentially cost neutral.

archagon 2mo ago
It’s because the stupid amendment is ambiguous. “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.” Technically, it could be argued that the Militia clause is descriptive of one particular application of guns, not prescriptive of their every Constitutional use. But there has been endless disagreement on this subject.