PT111
Regular Member
I think you bring up some good points and as you this is only my thought on 2A. Not only had they just won a war with England but were now facing the chore of defending not only a rebelion within but defending a border that was not that much less distance than what we have now. The argument against a standing army was not only political but a practical one that due to the limited availablilty of travel at that time a standing army to be effective would have been too much of a burden on the country.
With this thought it was that the same way the revolution was one was the way to defend the country and all parts it. That method was a militia of all able bodied men or whoever else was needed. Each person was expected to defend his part of the border as part of that militia. The well regulated part was that all were expected to be well trained in fighting and to come to the aid of their neighbor if needed.
Much of the arme used in the revolution including ships and cannons were privately owned and the writers understood that for a militia or army to be effective they would have to be armed with more than just knives, bows and rifles. They understood this and meant to include ALL ARMS in writing 2A. Ther was no thought to having it only apply to personal arms or handguns. It meant all arms, the private citizen was the military so anything that the military uses was also to be part of the private citizen's (militia's) arsenal. The opinion nowdays that the National Guard replaces the militaty is BS as the National Guard is just a part of the standing army.
The right of self-defense for a citizen was a given right that was so ingraned into their thinking that it was not felt that there was any need to even consider that as a specified right. If a citizen could defend themselves from invaders such as the Indians or French surely they could also defend themselves from a robber. They were the one and same.
Fast forward 200 years and we should still have that same right and responsibility as the average citizen should be allowed to defend ourselves from the invasion from Mexico and the Middle East. However we are restricted because the militia has been effectively disbanded because of our standing army, INS, FBI, SS, BATF and all the other alphabet agencies. Sadly we are also prohibited from the internal revolution that the writers saw that a country may need one day.
We also fast forward 200 years and now should the average person be allowed to keep a nuke in his garage or possible walk around with it across his back? We all realize that these weapons are so devastating that we even try to prohibit countries from having them. With that we realize that maybe there should be some limits on 2A due to the massive danger that these weapons possess. Not that anything in 2A prohibits them but common sense says that a line should be drawn somewhere.
But where is that line drawn is the problem. 2A is about the defense of the country and the individual. It does not say anything about the right to own a handgun, shotgun or rifle as long as they are not automatic. It is about the right to defend yourself and your country and in order to do that you may be armed. You have the right to KEEP and to BEAR those arms. But when and where?
The SCOTUS got it right when they said that you had the right to be armed in your home. You also have the right to be armed on your property and you are defending your property. The writers said Yes, you have the responsibility to defend your home, your property and yourself. And you have the right to do that with the arms you need.
With all of this we have to go back to the thought of the nuke and where is the line drawn? With some there should be no line at all. Maybe from a legal technical point they are correct and I cannot actually disagree with them. From a practical standpoint I think that a line is needed as you cannot contain the effects of an exploding nuke or the release of a biological weapon to your property. So we have to look at how a weapon will affect others when we use it. If it only affects the bad guys or invaders then we are good but innocent bystanders are different. When you fire your gun does the bullet stay on your property or does it travel to your neighbors?
Some want the line drawn to where there are no weapons but that goes against 2A and common sense. To me 2A applies to much more than handguns and the right to walk around with a 1911 strapped on your hip. Many choose to completely ignore the first part of 2A but it provides the whole meaning of the remainder of it. 2A says that we have the right to be armed to protect our home, property and ourselves. Whereever we may be we have the right to be armed protect ourselves. If one wants to argue when an where the line is drawn then go ahead. To me 2A says that we should be able to have fully automatic weapons on our own property or wehn we are fighting off invaders. We should also be able to have cannons on our property if we think they will be needed.
I do not think that 2A applies just to handguns and I don't think that 2A or the writers felt that prisoners in jail should be allowed to have weapons to protect their jail Will you need a weapon to protect yourself in a police station, Wal-Mart, courthouse, or school and what kind of weapon will you need. This is where the line is. I think that 2A was meant to be interpreted and any kind of weapon at any time and any place that it was needed, but not as a right to carry any kind of weapon you want to anyplace you want to. There is a line that meets the intent of 2A. To ignore the first part of 2A is wrong and to think that 2A only applies to certain types of weapons is wrong. I am not sure where that line should be but I am sure that very few if anyone is or will be hapy about it.
[My opinion only an to be taken as such]
