I wish there was some agreement on what a “Well regulated militia” is.
I think it was pretty clear cut what a milita was when this document was written, and what the intent of the founding fathers was.
Its just modern day liberals want to redefine militia as national guard to fit their agenda and pretend like in the 1700s the militia wasn’t pretty much anyone able to hold a gun, and that they recognized at that point in history the enemy the militia may be fighting may in fact be an oppressive government, you know, considering we just got done winning our independence from Britian and all.
I am likely mostly agreement with you here. I believe the Founding Fathers wanted to have citizens sufficiently armed, that they could rise up against the government, if the government became repressive, and needed to be overturned. It seems that anything BUT that is part of the debate, right down to arguing about weapons for hunting, or personally warding off a criminal. What do any of these have to do with protecting against all enemies foreign and domestic? The argument for self-defense needs to come out of of the militia argument, and that one also has a right to self-defense. All this appears to be lost to me. The National Guard argument is closer to this, but it still isn’t sufficient.
As it is now, considering America became a superpower, to which the Founding Fathers likely weren’t looking for (just mind one’s own business, and let Europe burn), really has ended up undermining this view. The U.S military’s budget is so large, and weapons research a good chunk of it, that normal weapons available to citizens aren’t even sufficient. The military is research mind control and ability to disarm situations where it doesn’t cause any other damage. They are such they can target threats and make it look like it is anything.
Things are such now, if you begin to discuss the intent of the founding fathers, people think you want to overthrow the government, and any publicity will end up labeling where you live as a “compound”. Yes, I hold a basic rule that you know you are in trouble if where you live gets called a “compound” by the news media.
My wish is that, I wish the blasted conversation regarding what the Second Amendment was about, centered on what the Founding Fathers meant, and why it matters. As it is now, the NRA and their political opponents are totally not making this possible.
I take that “Well regulated militias” would help to prevent unbalanced individuals from being a threat with weapons. We don’t have this now. I would hold, maybe if the NRA got the Second Amendment right fully, they could be one of the well regulated militias and citizens who wanted weapons would have to be members, and go through sufficient training on properly using them, and the NRA could also make sure that unbalanced individuals were dealt with. The NRA wouldn’t be the only such organization. Others could also. Private citizens could take care of things properly.
Anyhow, that is a take I have on this. I believe I am closer to the Founding Father’s intentions than what I am seeing here. I would also say that well regulated militias could also end up having other weapons beyond just personal fire arms for self-defense and hunting. They need to be well regulated.
By the way, I take “Well regulated” to mean “functioning competently and reliably for the intention they were designed”, not “buried in a bunch of government rules to make sure they are of minimal effect”.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.
IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) 1 year, 10 months ago.
